From: Bob Miller <rem@osdl.org>
To: "Juan M. de la Torre" <jmtorre@gmx.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Questions on semaphores
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 15:21:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020904152135.A2047@doc.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020904212931.GA2014@apocalipsis>; from jmtorre@gmx.net on Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:29:31PM +0200
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:29:31PM +0200, Juan M. de la Torre wrote:
>
> Hi people, I have two question regarding the i386 semaphore implementation
> in kernel 2.4.19.
>
> Please dont blame me if they are too obvius; i'm a newbie in kernel hacking
> :)
>
> The functions __down, __down_interruptible and __down_trylock (defined
> in arch/i386/kernel/semaphore.c) use the global spinlock
> 'semaphore_lock' to access some fields of the semaphore they are
> working on:
>
> 1) Is there any reason to do this?
It was easy to do.
> 2) Wouldn't it be more scalable to use a per-semaphore lock instead a
> global spinlock?
>
Yes it would be more scalable, but not as much as you would think.
The __down, __down_interruptible and __down_trylock code only gets
invoked when the semaphore is contended for.
> The function __down_trylock try to get the spinlock using
> spin_lock_irqsave, instead of using spin_lock_irq:
>
> 1) why? :)
>
The __down_trylock() code can be called with another lock held. The
spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_lock_irqrestore() interface is used to restore
the irq value for the lock that may already be held.
> Thanks in advance,
> Juanma
>
The code in the 2.5 tree was changed a while back to use the spinlock in
the wait_queue_head_t to replace the global semaphore spin lock. So, this
has been "FIXED" in 2.5.
--
Bob Miller Email: rem@osdl.org
Open Source Development Lab Phone: 503.626.2455 Ext. 17
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-04 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-04 21:29 Questions on semaphores Juan M. de la Torre
2002-09-04 22:21 ` Bob Miller [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020904152135.A2047@doc.pdx.osdl.net \
--to=rem@osdl.org \
--cc=jmtorre@gmx.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox