In message <1015271393.15277.112.camel@phantasy> you write:
> > +static spinlock_t futex_lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
>
> Could we make this per-waitqueue?
Yes, once someone gives benchmarks proving it's worth doing the whole
"multiple locks and cache aligned" thing. Until then, it's premature
optimization.
> We should do:
>
> #define FUTEX_UP 1
> #define FUTEX_DOWN -1
Ack. Definitely.
> here. The preempt statements compile away if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set,
> so you can just put them in, even on arches that don't do preemption
> yet.
Oops, that code shouldn't have been in patch, and the only reason that
preempt_disable() was commented out is that I tested the patch on 2.4.
> ... oh, and I would love an example of using it in userspace ;)
I'll throw it in for patch IV. 8)
> Nice work, Rusty.
I don't know if I can accept the kudos: it's now hovering at about 70%
my code, but only 20% my ideas.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:37 EST