Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:23:48 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 16:57 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 23:45 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > (1) Provides a simple xchg() based semaphore as a default for all > > architectures that don't wish to override it and provide their own. > > > > Overriding is possible by setting CONFIG_ARCH_IMPLEMENTS_MUTEX and > > supplying asm/mutex.h > > > > Partial overriding is possible by #defining mutex_grab(), mutex_release() > > and is_mutex_locked() to perform the appropriate optimised functions. > > Your code is really similar to the RT mutex, which does everything that > your mutex does at least ? Assuming you've reviewed the RT mutex, why > would we want to use yours over it?
Maybe this would be the better !PREEMPT_RT version. But the true mutex that Ingo is making would be used for the PREEMPT_RT side.
This code at least brings down the over head of semaphores where they are not really needed. Looking at the code slightly (I must admit, I spent maybe 30 seconds looking at it), it does seem a little similar to Ingo's. Could just be coincidence, since the methods are pretty much what multiple people would come up with. But you both work for RedHat, hmm.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |