Paul Cassella wrote:
> > dmabuf_alloc(...)
> > {
> > while (1) {
> > spin_lock(&dmabuf_lock);
> > attempt to grab a free buffer;
> > spin_unlock(&dmabuf_lock);
> > if (success)
> > return;
> > down(&dmabuf_wait);
> > }
> > }
>
> > dmabuf_free(...)
> > {
> > spin_lock(&dmabuf_lock);
> > free up buffer;
> > spin_unlock(&dmabuf_lock);
> > up(&dmabuf_wait);
> > }
>
> This does things a little differently than the way the original did it.
> I thought the original implied that dmabuf_free() might free up multiple
> buffers. There's no indication in the comments that this is the case, but
> the original, by using vall_sema(), wakes up all dmabuf_alloc()'s that had
> gone to sleep.
Granted, it's just an example, but it doesn't make sense to wake up more
dmabuf_alloc waiters than you actually have buffers for. You do one
up() per freed buffer, and the semaphore's wait queue better be fifo or
have some other way of ensuring a task doesn't languish there. (I don't
know, does it?)
> The example wasn't meant to be an ideal use of sv's, but merely as an
> example of how they could be used to achieve the same behavior as the code
> that was posted.
Yes, and a third example of the 'unlock/wakeup_and_sleep' kind of
primitive - there seems to be a pattern. I should at least take a look
and see if up_down is easy or hard to implement.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
