Adrian Cox wrote:
> >> Jamie Lokier's suggestion of raising priority when in the kernel doesn't
> >> help. You need to raise the priority of the task which is currently in
> >> userspace and will call up() next time it enters the kernel. You don't
> >> know which task that is.
>
> > Dear oh dear. I was under the impression that kernel semaphores are
> > supposed to be used as mutexes only -- there are other mechanisms for
> > signalling between processes.
>
> I think most of the kernel semaphores are used as mutexes, with
> occasional producer/consumer semaphores. I think the core kernel code is
> fine, the risk mostly comes from miscellaneous character devices. I've
> written code that does this for a specialised device driver. I wanted
> only one process to have the device open at once, and for others to
> block on open. Using semaphores meant that multiple shells could do "cat
> > /dev/mywidget" and be serialised.
Oh, it's you :-)
In this case we don't care if process A is blocked waiting for idle
process B to release the device, do we?
> Locking up users of this strange piece of hardware doesn't bring down
> the system, so your suggestion could work. We need a big fat warning in
> semaphore.h, and a careful examination of the current code.
If it weren't for the weight of history, they could be called `struct
mutex' just to rub it in.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 15 2001 - 21:00:15 EST