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

Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > So... Would you then object to an implementation of a mutex appearing in the
> >  tree which semaphores that are being used as strict mutexes can be migrated
> >  over to as the opportunity arises?
> 
> That would be sane.
>

But not very.

Look at it from the POV of major architectures: there's no way the new
mutex code will be faster than down() and up(), so we're adding a bunch of
new tricky locking code which bloats the kernel and has to be understood
and debugged for no gain.

And I don't buy the debuggability argument really.  It'd be pretty simple
to add debug code to the existing semaphore code to trap non-mutex usages. 
Then go through the few valid non-mutex users and do:

#if debug
	sem->this_is_not_a_mutex = 1;
#endif
-
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: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Andrew Morton <[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: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Paul Jackson <[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: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[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: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
    • From: Mark Lord <[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: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [RFC][patch 00/21] PID Virtualization: Overview and Patches
• Next by Date: agpgart.ko can't be unloaded
• 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]