lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:30:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> No it does not.
>
> Ingo's work has shown us two things:
>
> a) semaphores use more kernel text than they should and
>
> b) semaphores are less efficient than they could be.
>
> Fine. Let's update the semaphore implementation to fix those things.
> Nobody has addressed this code in several years. If we conclusively cannot
> fix these things then that's the time to start looking at implementing new
> locking mechanisms.

c) semaphores are total overkill for 99% percent of the users. Remember
this thing about optimizing for the common case?

Pretty much everywhere we do want mutex semantic. So let's have a proper
primitive exactly for that, and we can keep the current semaphore
implementation (with a much simpler implementation) for that handfull of
users in the kernel that really want a counting semaphore.

I really don't get why you hate mutex primitives so much.
-
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: 2005-12-23 00:36    [W:0.166 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site