[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:35:36AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > Could someone please remind me why we're even discussing this, given that
    > mutex_down() is slightly more costly than current down(), and mutex_up() is
    > appreciably more costly than current up()?

    That's a good question. The new mutex implementation here is big regression
    to what we have right now. What I had in mind when brainstorming something
    like this would be to have a slow-path pure C semaphore implementation that
    is cross-platform, and keep the current semaphore code as mutex. Once that
    is done the mutex code could be optimized further because it doesn't need to
    deal with the broader uses of the semaphore, and we could add lots of useful

    The current patchkit is far from that.

    What might be more useful as a start is to implement a mutex type ontop
    of the current semaphore that has lots of additional checks for the DEBUG
    build so we have nice diagnostics. Once we have all users of mutex semantics
    using that API we can change the underlying implementation to whatever we want.
    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: 2005-12-14 13:20    [W:0.019 / U:22.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site