[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: mutexes, locks and so on...
> On 2010-11-16 19:32, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:44:18AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>>> Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not"
>>>> side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, der Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Arches without a sufficiently general CAS[%] do not define
>>>>> ATOMIC_OPS_USE_CAS and provides their own implementations of mutexes,
>>>>> spinlocks, whatever.
>>> Because that flexibility already exists. A port can provide a full
>>> mutex or rwlock implementation or use the default based on CAS primitives.
>>> I think the question is about more about the naked use of atomic_cas_xxx
>>> which are scattered around in the kernel.
>> Wouldn't those calls just use the slow implementation of CAS? I haven't
>> heard anyone saying that the vax port shouldn't (continue to) implement ai
>> CAS operation, just that it shouldn't be used for mutexes. And if those
>> naked uses of atomic_cas_xxx cause unreasonable slowness for that port,
>> well that's a separate problem.
> Yes, for those cases in the kernel, where atomic_cas is used, there is
> probably no option to continue providing a CAS implementation. Nothing
> more to do or say about those ones.
> The (my) problem is that rwlocks must use CAS as well, and I'm starting
> to think that I have to use CAS for the mutex code as well, as I can't
> seem to get mutexs work reliably without using the default
> implementation. The mutexes are used and abused in ways that seems to
> make a lot of implicit assumptions on the mutexes which go beyond what I
> might expect. Still working on it, though.
- are you suggesting to revive __HAVE_SIMPLE_RW_LOCKS?
- hppa seems to have a mutex implemented without cas. is it broken?
Main Index |
Thread Index |