Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:42:14PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Note that subsequent up() will not call wakeup(): ->count == 0,
> > it just increment it. That is why we are waking the next waiter
> > in advance. When it gets cpu, it will decrement ->count by 1,
> > because ->sleepers == 0. If up() (++->count) was already called,
> > it takes semaphore. If not - goes to sleep again.
> >
> > Or my understanding is completely broken?
>
> [ ... long snip ... ]
>
> The question now remains as to why we have the atomic_add_negative()? Why do
> we change the count in __down(), when down() has already decremented it
> for us?
... and why __down() always sets ->sleepers = 0 on return.
I don't have an answer, only a wild guess.
Note that if P1 releases this semaphore before pre-woken P2 actually
gets cpu what happens is:
P1->up() just increments ->count, no wake_up() (fastpath)
P2 takes the semaphore without schedule.
So *may be* it was designed this way as some form of optimization,
in this scenario P2 has some chances to run with sem held earlier.
Oleg.
-
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]
