Thread (209 messages) 209 messages, 31 authors, 2005-12-22

Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation

From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Date: 2005-12-13 11:34:32
Also in: lkml

David Howells [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Any reason why you're setting up your own style of waitqueue in
mutex-simple.c instead of just using the kernel's style of waitqueue?
Because I can steal the code from FRV's semaphores or rw-semaphores, and this
way I can be sure of what I'm doing.
And because:

	struct mutex {
		int			state;
		wait_queue_head_t	wait_queue;
	};

Wastes 8 more bytes of memory than:

	struct mutex {
		int			state;
		spinlock_t		wait_lock;
		struct list_head	wait_list;
	};

on a 64-bit machine if spinlock_t is 4 bytes. Both waste 4 bytes if spinlock_t
is 8 bytes.

David
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help