On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Matti Linnanvuori <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
> I thought of a scenario where it seems appropriate to use a binary
> semaphore or a mutex in a software interrupt context. If a device
> cannot interrupt when some important variable changes, it can be
> polled occasionally to update e.g. LEDs to indicate status. Such
> polling can be done most efficiently in timers that are software
> interrupts. Timers are more efficient than works because they do not
> have so much context switching overhead. If the access to the
> variables of the device must be serialized, a binary semaphore or a
> mutex is a natural choice. If user-space writing to the device is
> likely to change the status, it can make sense not to poll the status
> of the device at the same time. The timer could therefore sensibly
> call mutex_trylock.
what do you do if the trylock fails?
> Therefore, it seems wrong to me to deprecate
> binary semaphores and disallow the use of mutexes in software
> interrupt contexts.
to be honest, the scenario describe really smells of broken locking, in
fact it really sounds like it wants to use spinlocks instead
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
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]
