lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores

* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 07:05:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > i very much agree with the "get rid of semaphores" argument - the
> > reason why i initially supported the "move to generic semaphores"
> > step was because i saw it basically as the precursor to full
> > removal: it is the removal of semaphores from all architectures -
> > with a small generic compatibility wrapper to handle the remaining
> > few uses of semaphores.
>
> Hm. I thought you initially supported it because it deleted so much
> code. [...]

... sorry, but i always thought of semaphores to be removed completely.

> [...] I don't want to go and add down_killable() to each architecture
> again, and you were pretty enthusiastic about adding down_killable().

... the killable sleeps should and are already propagated everywhere - i
never thought of them as a semaphore-only feature.

killable sleeps are probably the next best thing to true
interruptability.

btw., has anyone thought about killable sync/fsync syscalls - would that
surprise too many programs?

> > i got thoroughly surprised by the "increase the scope of semaphores"
> > angle to the patchset though, and in hindsight i'd rather see
> > neither of those generalizations and see semaphores die a slow but
> > sure natural death than to see their prolongation :-/
>
> I'm fully in favour of reducing the number of semaphore users, and
> eventually eliminating them. Arjan and I discussed a way to do that
> just now ... I'll write some code, see how it looks.

cool!

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-16 14:41    [W:0.059 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site