[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Q: sock output serialization

> Yes, I see. I did not realize before that the lock_sock and the
> sk->backlog framework are not two independent things. They really
> seem to be designed for team work only. Did I get this right?


Actually, in 2.4 lock_sock() is also semaphore and in some cases
(f.e. for stateless datagram sockets) it is used as pure semaphore.

> applied seems to make socket propgramming as easy as in the old cli()/sti()
> days again.

What??? 8)8)

No, it makes it much easier. 8)

By the way:

1. lock_sock() is not much younger than cli()/sti().
2. cli()/sti() is not used by attended parts of networking for looong time,
they are deprecated not yesterday too.

> tcp also seems to use some additional protocol-global spinlocks

Of course.

> (like tcp_portalloc_lock).

And this is redundant, to be honest. 8)

> the spinlock. In that case, beeing preemptable would make a very essential
> difference.

Yes, of course.

> Anyway, it seems that I can already make use the lock_sock() infrastructure
> for fixing the output serialization, even without making the whole
> protocol stack SMP-aware at once.

Actually, the last task is not a rocket science as well.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.049 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site