lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
Date
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Any reason why you're setting up your own style of waitqueue in
> > mutex-simple.c instead of just using the kernel's style of waitqueue?
>
> Because I can steal the code from FRV's semaphores or rw-semaphores, and this
> way I can be sure of what I'm doing.

And because:

struct mutex {
int state;
wait_queue_head_t wait_queue;
};

Wastes 8 more bytes of memory than:

struct mutex {
int state;
spinlock_t wait_lock;
struct list_head wait_list;
};

on a 64-bit machine if spinlock_t is 4 bytes. Both waste 4 bytes if spinlock_t
is 8 bytes.

David
-
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: 2005-12-13 12:37    [W:0.151 / U:4.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site