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

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

From: Arjan van de Ven <hidden>
Date: 2005-12-14 11:44:44
Also in: lkml

On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 03:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Could someone please remind me why we're even discussing this,
* cleaner API
* more declarative in terms of intent

which in turn allow
* higher performance
* enhanced options like the -rt patch is doing, such as boosting
processes when a semaphore they're holding hits contention
* mutex use is a candidate for a "spinaphore" treatment (unlike counting
semaphores)
 given that
mutex_down() is slightly more costly than current down(), and mutex_up() is
appreciably more costly than current up()?
that's an implementation flaw in the current implementation that is not
needed by any means and that Ingo has fixed in his version of this
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help