[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805131019360.3019@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Sven Wegener <sven.wegener@...aler.net>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes
On Tue, 13 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> hm, this sounds like damage that is inflicted on itself by the XFS code.
No. You're confusing what a counting semaphore is.
> Why does it signal to its waiters that "resource is available", when in
> reality that resource is not available but immediately serialized via a
> lock? (even if the lock might technically be some _other_ object)
So you have 'n' resources available, and you use a counting semaphore for
that resource counting.
But you'd still need a spinlock to actually protect the list of resources
themselves. The spinlock protects a different thing than the semaphore.
The semaphore isn't about mutual exclusion - it's about counting resources
and waiting when there are too many things in flight.
And you seem to think that a counting semaphore is about mutual exclusion.
It has nothing what-so-ever to do with that.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists