Re: [PATCH 1/19] MUTEX: Introduce simple mutex implementation
From: Nick Piggin <hidden>
Date: 2005-12-14 01:00:34
Also in:
lkml
From: Nick Piggin <hidden>
Date: 2005-12-14 01:00:34
Also in:
lkml
David Howells wrote:
Nick Piggin [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
We have atomic_cmpxchg. Can you use that for a sufficient generic implementation?No. CMPXCHG/CAS is not as available as XCHG, and it's also unnecessary.
atomic_cmpxchg should be available on all platforms. While it may be strictly unnecessary, if it can be used to avoid having a crappy default implementation that requires it to be reimplemented in all architectures then that would be a good thing. Any arguments about bad scalability or RT behaviour of the hashed spinlock emulation atomic_t implementations are silly because they are used by all atomic_ operations. It is an arch implementation detail that generic code should not have to worry about. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com