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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
