tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Modules loading modules?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:

Well, folks, here is a first pass recursive locks!  The attached diffs
are against -current as of a few minutes ago.

Oh, heh, I thought we have recursive lock support.  But with that gone
from the vfs locks, I guess not (apart from the kernel lock ;).


I'm not sure if it's a good idea to change the size of kmutex_t.  I guess
plenty of data structures have carefully been adjusted by hand to its
size and I don't know of any automatic way to recalculate that stuff.

Even if not, since this is the only user and we probably won't have
that many of them even in the future, why not just define a new type
``rmutex'' which contains a kmutex, an owner and the counter?  It feels
wrong to punish all the normal kmutex users for just one use.  It'll also
make the implementation a lot simpler to test, since it's purely MI.

"separate normal case and worst case"

Good point, and it will be a lot less work, too! :) And it solves the problem of not permitting a rmutex being used with condvars.

One question: Since an adaptive kmutex_t already includes an owner field, would we really need to have another copy of it in the rmutex_t structure?

| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:       |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at    |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at |
| Kernel Developer |                          | pgoyette at  |

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index