On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:32:11PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> > I think a better way to proceed would be to make semaphores a bit more
> > intelligent and turn them into something like adaptive spinlocks and use
> > them more where appropiate (currently using semaphores usually causes
> > lots of context switches where some could probably be avoided). Problem
> > is that for some cases like your producer-consumer pattern (which has been
> > used previously in unreleased kernel code BTW) it would be a pessimization
> > to spin, so such adaptive locks would probably need a different name.
>
> Like solaris adaptive mutexes? It would be interesting to test,
> however considering read/write semaphores are hardly ever used these
> days we want to be sure they are worth it before adding yet another
> synchronisation primitive.
A bit similar, yes, but much simpler @-)
The problem is that current Linux semaphores are very costly locks -- they
always cause a context switch.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
