From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep? Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:59:31 +0100 Message-ID: <1206698371.8514.608.camel@twins> References: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE9DF60@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> <1206624052.8514.570.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "Luck, Tony" , linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 11:44 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > confusion between semaphores and rwsems > > rwsem is not a semaphore despite its name? What do you want to call it > then? Its not a real counting semaphore, a sleeping rw lock might be a better name as opposed to the contradition rw-mutex :-) But lets just call it a rwsem; we all know what that is. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:56944 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752471AbYC1J7o (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:59:44 -0400 Subject: Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep? From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE9DF60@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> <1206624052.8514.570.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:59:31 +0100 Message-ID: <1206698371.8514.608.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "Luck, Tony" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20080328095931.P8guoL8O20LcpWhlyS5Cqcx0XOSeZ6R3q1WDIwmABNY@z> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 11:44 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > confusion between semaphores and rwsems > > rwsem is not a semaphore despite its name? What do you want to call it > then? Its not a real counting semaphore, a sleeping rw lock might be a better name as opposed to the contradition rw-mutex :-) But lets just call it a rwsem; we all know what that is.