Re: [RFC] Add support for semaphore-like structure with support for asynchronous I/O

2005-04-16 Thread David Howells
Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AFAICS You grab the wait_queue_t lock once in down()/__mutex_lock() order to try to take the lock (or queue the waiter if that fails), then once more in order to pass the mutex on to the next waiter on up()/mutex_unlock(). That is more or less the

Re: [RFC] Add support for semaphore-like structure with support for asynchronous I/O

2005-04-16 Thread David Howells
Benjamin LaHaise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the use of atomic operations on frv? Are they more lightweight than a semaphore, making for a better fastpath? What do you mean? Atomic ops don't compare to semaphores. On FRV atomic ops don't disable interrupts; they reserve one of the