In message <20020307153228.3A6773FE06@smtp.linux.ibm.com> you write:
> 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....
>
> I m not in favor of that. The dominant lock will be mutexes.
To clarify: I'd love this, but rwlocks in the kernel aren't even
vaguely fair. With a steady stream of overlapping readers, a writer
will never get the lock.
Hope that clarifies,
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 - 21:01:13 EST