Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:34:16 +0000 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |