Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Any reason why you're setting up your own style of waitqueue in
> mutex-simple.c instead of just using the kernel's style of waitqueue?

Because I can steal the code from FRV's semaphores or rw-semaphores, and this
way I can be sure of what I'm doing.

Note that the sleeping processes are generally dequeued and dispatched by the
up() function, which means they don't have to take the spinlock themselves.
This may be possible to do magically with the waitqueue stuff, but I'm not sure
how to do it; it's horribly complicated to read through the sources and there
isn't much documentation.

> > +	mb();
> 
> This should be smp_mb(), I think.

Yes.

David
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/9] unshare system call (take 3)
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]