Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-23,: Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ...

# Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ...

V Ganesh (ganesh@vxindia.veritas.com)
Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:46:41 +0530 (IST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Profanity in the Linux Kernel?!?!?"
- Previous message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: Improving capabilities support: need your opinion"
- Maybe in reply to: Davide Libenzi: "New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."
- Next in thread: Mark Hull-Richter: "Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."

> I think we should wakeup the last process that gone to sleep even in the
> up() case. We should simple ask for an EXCLUSIVE wakeup.

wait a sec, what about starvation issues ? if the semaphore is used for
resource counting then it's ok. but if it is used as a mutex then we're
in trouble. LIFO is unacceptable, FIFO might have priority inversion.
calculating goodness() on all the processes in the waitqueue and picking
the winner sounds like the way to go, IMHO.

ganesh

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

- Next message: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Profanity in the Linux Kernel?!?!?"
- Previous message: Matthew Kirkwood: "Re: Improving capabilities support: need your opinion"
- Maybe in reply to: Davide Libenzi: "New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."
- Next in thread: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."
- Next in thread: Mark Hull-Richter: "Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."
- Reply: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: New semaphore __wake_up() implementation ..."