On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > Ehh... Non-lazy variant is just read() and write() as down_failed() and
> > up_wakeup() Lazy... How about
>
> Looks good to me. Anybody want to try this out and test some benchmarks?
Ugh. It doesn't look good for me. s/MAX_INT/MAX_INT>>1/ or we will
get into trouble on anything that goes into spin_and_lose. Window is
pretty narrow (notice that lost_it is OK - we only need to worry
about somebody coming in after winner drives Lock from 1 to 0
and before it gets it from 0 to MAX_INT), but we can get into serious
trouble if schedule() will hit that window.
MAX_INT/2 should be enough to deal with that, AFAICS.
However, I would _really_ like to get that code reviewed from the memory
access ordering POV. Warning: right now I'm half-asleep, so the thing can
very well be completely bogus in that area. Extra eyes would be certainly
welcome.
Al
PS: ->Lock should be set to 1 when we initialize semaphore. Destroying
semaphore should do
if (sem->Lock > 1) {
close(sem->writer);
close(sem->reader);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:32 EST