[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] scheduler fixes, 2.5.32-BK

On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> So why couldn't this happen? This is what used to happen before, I don't
> see that consolidating the spinlock had any impact at all.
> CPU #0 CPU #1
> down() up()
> lock decl (negative)
> __down() lock incl
> spinlock() __up()
> atomic_add_negative()
> success - break
> spinunlock();
> } wake_up()
> return - semaphore is now invalid spin_lock()

hm, indeed, you are right - completions are the only safe method.

i'm starting to wonder whether it's possible at all (theoretically) to
have a mutex design which has the current semaphore implementation's good
fastpath properties, but could also be used on stack.


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 13:28    [W:0.043 / U:2.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site