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

Steven Rostedt
2005-12-15T21:29:00Z

On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 12:18 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> >
> > David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So... Would you then object to an implementation of a mutex appearing in the
> > > tree which semaphores that are being used as strict mutexes can be migrated
> > > over to as the opportunity arises?
> >
> > That would be sane.
> >
>
> But not very.
>
> Look at it from the POV of major architectures: there's no way the new
> mutex code will be faster than down() and up(), so we're adding a bunch of
> new tricky locking code which bloats the kernel and has to be understood
> and debugged for no gain.

I see it as a stepping stone for RT ;)

>
> And I don't buy the debuggability argument really. It'd be pretty simple
> to add debug code to the existing semaphore code to trap non-mutex usages.
> Then go through the few valid non-mutex users and do:
>
> #if debug
> sem->this_is_not_a_mutex = 1;
> #endif

That just looks plain ugly. Still, if you want to keep the major archs
unchanged (at least until RT is in!) then just add the following:

#define mutex_lock(x) down(x)
#define mutex_unlock(x) up(x)
#define mutex_trylock(x) (!down_trylock(x)) /* see previous email! */

Then you can add your ugly patch ;) where on debug we define those
declared with DEFINE_SEM(x) add the this_is_not_a_mutex = 1

-- Steve

> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/