lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: atomic RAM ?
    From
    From: Michael Schnell <mschnell@lumino.de>
    Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:11:00 +0200

    > If one thread locks the "cpu_atomic_instruction_lock" and now the Kernel
    > does a task switch and now a second thread tries to lock it as well,
    > same would need to do a kernel call to do the waiting.

    Using the spinlock array idea also doesn't work in userspace
    because any signal handler that tries to do an atomic on the
    same object will deadlock on the spinlock.

    You'll have have to do this entirely in the kernel, and your
    FUTEX implementation will have to always make the futex()
    system call.

    It's the only way to do this and have it work completely.

    We have to do something similar on sparc32, and the signal handler
    deadlocks are very real, many glibc testcases that use threads
    and pthread mutexes will deadlock because of this very issue if
    you try to do the spinlock trick in userspace.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-08 14:17    [W:0.018 / U:31.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site