lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: kernel lock contention and scalability
Date
From
ananth@sgi.com said:
> Here it is:
> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/postwait/
> Check out the download section for a 2.4.0 patch.

After having thought about this a bit more, I don't see why pw_post and
pw_wait can't be implemented in userspace as:

int pw_post(uid_t uid)
{
return(kill(uid, SIGHUP)) /* Or signal of the waiter's choice */
}

int pw_wait(struct timespec *t)
{
return(nanosleep(t, t));
}

In the case of UML, there would be a uid field in its lock structure and the
spin code would look like:

lock->uid = getpid();
pw_wait(NULL);

and the lock release code would be:

pw_post(lock->uid);

Obviously, sending signals to processes from the outside could massively
confuse matters, but I don't see that being a big problem, since I think you
can do that now, and no one is complaining about it.

Is there anything that I'm missing?

Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.032 / U:16.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site