Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:36:01 +0200 | From | "Andi Kleen" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Wine speedup through kernel module |
| |
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 02:28:36PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > I looked a bit over the code. Your Mutex classes do not look very SMP safe, > > have they been tested with SMP ? > > Look carefully... It uses the atomic bit set/clear functions to modify the > state, and the wait-queue carries its own lock.
I did not see the lock. Where is it ?
> > And yes, they have been SMP tested... I have a dual Pentium-II box at home. I > ran my five-thread test programs on it and they ran extremely fast without > crashing (faster than Win2000 on the same box with the same test). > > > Also I guess it would be better to implement Mutexes in user space as far as > > possible and only use kernel help for inter process mutexes. > > What's the difference? And how do you tell that a mutex is going to be used > only between threads and not between processes? Anonymous mutexes don't > actually help - think of DuplicateHandle!
I don't know too much about Win32, but I assume you could always share it lazily on demand (assuming the most mutexes are only used by threads, not between processes) > > Plus it only greatly complicates your WaitFor* functions. > > > For the object name management I did not found any limits that would prevent > > an user from allocating all memory. Are there any? > > getname() implies MAXPATHLEN (the VFS name to kernel-space function).
But the number of objects is not restricted, no ?
-Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |