From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@osdl.org, arjanv@infradead.org, nico@cam.org,
jes@trained-monkey.org, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, oleg@tv-sign.ru,
dhowells@redhat.com, bcrl@kvack.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
ak@suse.de, rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200512262249.46339.zippel@linux-m68k.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051225225446.GA10877@elte.hu>
Hi,
On Sunday 25 December 2005 23:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...] I also haven't hardly seen any discussion about why semaphores
> > the way they are. Linus did suspect there is a wakeup bug in the
> > semaphore, but there was no conclusive followup to that.
>
> no conclusive follow-up because ... they are too complex for people to
> answer such questions off the cuff? Something so frequently used in
> trivial ways should have the complexity of that typical use, not the
> complexity of the theoretical use. There is no problem with semaphores,
> other than that they are not being used as semaphores all that often.
It shouldn't be that out of the blue for you. I don't mind the whole concept
of mutexes and I agree that that's what most semaphores are used for. Please
stop for a moment trying to sell mutexes, the basic question I'd like to get
answered is, what is the worst-case scenerio if we convert everything to
mutexes?
To make it very clear: I'm not arguing against mutexes, I only want a look at
the complete picture, I don't only want to see the undoubted advantages, but
also what are the risks? Is the semaphore wakeup behaviour really only a bug
or does it fix some problem that just nobody remembers (and maybe even
doesn't exist anymore)? What about the fairness issues mentioned, how easy is
it to starve waiters?
Ingo, you're working on it already for a while, so I would expect you already
thought about possible problems already, so why don't you take a look at the
risks for us instead of just explaining the advantages? What are the chances
we end up with semaphores just under a different name? Are there other
possible problems, which then can be only solved e.g. by adding priority
inheritance?
The point of this is to be prepared for any predictable problem, since this
change in its consequence is rather huge and we don't have the luxury of a
single development tree anymore, which is used by most developers.
bye, Roman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-26 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-22 11:41 [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 11:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-22 12:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 15:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 15:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 16:32 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 16:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 16:58 ` Russell King
2005-12-22 21:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 21:26 ` Russell King
2005-12-22 21:27 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 21:37 ` [patch 1/2] mutex subsystem: basic per arch fast path primitives Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 21:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-22 21:40 ` [patch 2/2] mutex subsystem: use the per architecture fast path lock_unlock defines Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 21:54 ` [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 16:58 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 17:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-22 17:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-22 18:24 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 11:54 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-22 12:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-22 13:07 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-22 13:23 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-12-22 13:44 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-22 14:11 ` Alan Cox
2005-12-22 23:30 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-22 23:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <32801.10.10.10.28.1135295357.squirrel@linux1>
2005-12-22 23:49 ` Sean
2005-12-22 23:53 ` Randy.Dunlap
[not found] ` <50572.10.10.10.28.1135296023.squirrel@linux1>
2005-12-23 0:00 ` Sean
2005-12-23 0:00 ` Steven Rostedt
[not found] ` <20051222221311.2f6056ec.akpm@osdl.org>
2005-12-23 14:24 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-23 14:51 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-23 14:57 ` Russell King
2005-12-23 15:04 ` Xavier Bestel
2005-12-23 15:27 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-23 15:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2006-01-03 17:54 ` Abhijit Bhopatkar
2005-12-25 16:08 ` Roman Zippel
2005-12-25 22:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-26 21:49 ` Roman Zippel [this message]
2005-12-25 23:04 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-25 23:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-26 10:35 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-26 10:42 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-12-26 11:11 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-26 17:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2005-12-26 17:44 ` Lee Revell
2005-12-27 0:32 ` David Lang
2005-12-26 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-12-27 14:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-12-27 23:02 ` Andrew Morton
2005-12-26 0:33 ` Moore's law (was Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4) Pavel Machek
2006-01-05 15:30 ` Andi Kleen
2006-01-05 19:08 ` Pavel Machek
2005-12-26 15:29 ` [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 15:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-12-22 17:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-12-22 20:09 ` Steven Rostedt
2005-12-22 17:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-12-22 15:19 ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-12-22 21:43 ` Paul Mackerras
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=200512262249.46339.zippel@linux-m68k.org \
--to=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=arjanv@infradead.org \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jes@trained-monkey.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/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