[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fast Userspace Mutexes III.
In message <1015271393.15277.112.camel@phantasy> you write:
> > +static spinlock_t futex_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> Could we make this per-waitqueue?

Yes, once someone gives benchmarks proving it's worth doing the whole
"multiple locks and cache aligned" thing. Until then, it's premature

> We should do:
> #define FUTEX_UP 1
> #define FUTEX_DOWN -1

Ack. Definitely.

> here. The preempt statements compile away if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set,
> so you can just put them in, even on arches that don't do preemption
> yet.

Oops, that code shouldn't have been in patch, and the only reason that
preempt_disable() was commented out is that I tested the patch on 2.4.

> ... oh, and I would love an example of using it in userspace ;)

I'll throw it in for patch IV. 8)

> Nice work, Rusty.

I don't know if I can accept the kudos: it's now hovering at about 70%
my code, but only 20% my ideas.

Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:0.195 / U:2.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site