On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 03:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Could someone please remind me why we're even discussing this, * cleaner API * more declarative in terms of intent which in turn allow * higher performance * enhanced options like the -rt patch is doing, such as boosting processes when a semaphore they're holding hits contention * mutex use is a candidate for a "spinaphore" treatment (unlike counting semaphores) > given that > mutex_down() is slightly more costly than current down(), and mutex_up() is > appreciably more costly than current up()? that's an implementation flaw in the current implementation that is not needed by any means and that Ingo has fixed in his version of this - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: "Christopher Friesen" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: David Howells <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
- Prev by Date: Re: ipw2200 [was Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel]
- Next by Date: Re: querry on DMA
- 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):
 |