On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nigel Gamble wrote:
> > Am I remembering the problem correctly?
>
> I don't think so :)
>
> The problem was that the semaphore was highly contended, so the
> losing process was explicitly scheduling away.
>
> This doesn't necessarily mean that it was a long-held lock. In
> this case, it was a short-held lock, but it was also very *frequently*
> being held and released. This is a scenario where a spinlock is
> heaps more appropriate than a semaphore.
Oh, well in that case, I agree that a spinlock is more appropriate.
Nigel Gamble nigel@nrg.org
Mountain View, CA, USA. http://www.nrg.org/
-
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 Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:15 EST