On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 10:33:32AM -0500, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> On Thursday 07 March 2002 07:50 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > This is a userspace implementation of rwlocks on top of futexes.
> >
> > question: if rwlocks aren't actually slower in the fast path than
> > futexes,
> > would it make sense to only do the rw variant and in some userspace
> > layer
> > map "traditional" semaphores to write locks ?
> > Saves half the implementation and testing....
> > -
> > 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/
>
> I m not in favor of that. The dominant lock will be mutexes.
if there's no extra cost I don't care which is dominant; having one well
tested path is worth it then. If there is extra cost then yes a split is
better.
-
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 - 21:01:04 EST