Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:26:16 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: rw_semaphores |
| |
yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 08:47:34AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > > > Since you're willing to use CMPXCHG in your suggested implementation, would it > > make it make life easier if you were willing to use XADD too? > > > > Plus, are you really willing to limit the number of readers or writers to be > > 32767? If so, I think I can suggest a way that limits it to ~65535 apiece > > instead... > > I'm trying to imagine a case where 32,000 sharing a semaphore was anything but a > major failure and I can't. To me: the result of an attempt by the 32,768th locker > should be a kernel panic. Is there a reasonable scenario where this is wrong? >
It can't happen (famous last words).
- It is a bug for a task to acquire an rwsem more than once (either for read or write), so we don't do this.
- Linux only supports, err, 31700 user processes. - 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/
| |