Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> Semaphores need a counter, mutexes only a binary representation of the
> locked/unlocked state

Actually, that's not true.

A _spinlock_ only needs a binary representation of the locked/unlocked 
state.

A mutex needs a _ternary_ representation. It needs an additional 
"contention" state to tell the wakeup that extra action is needed.

If you don't handle contention (and do extra action all the time), you're 
screwed from a performance standpoint.

			Linus
-
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 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>

References:
- [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
  - From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Possible Bootloader Optimization in inflate (get rid of unnecessary 32k Window)
Next by Date: [PATCH] Work around asus_acpi driver oopses on Samsung P30s and the like due to the ACPI implicit return
Previous by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
Next by thread: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
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]