Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750957AbVLYWLc (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:11:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750959AbVLYWLc (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:11:32 -0500 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:61595 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750957AbVLYWLU (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:11:20 -0500 From: Roman Zippel To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch 0/9] mutex subsystem, -V4 Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:08:01 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Andrew Morton , Alan Cox , arjan@infradead.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, arjanv@infradead.org, nico@cam.org, jes@trained-monkey.org, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, oleg@tv-sign.ru, dhowells@redhat.com, bcrl@kvack.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, ak@suse.de, rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk References: <20051222114147.GA18878@elte.hu> <20051222153014.22f07e60.akpm@osdl.org> <20051222233416.GA14182@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20051222233416.GA14182@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512251708.16483.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1427 Lines: 29 Hi, On Friday 23 December 2005 00:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > c) semaphores are total overkill for 99% percent of the users. Remember > this thing about optimizing for the common case? Semaphores are not that different from mutexes. What makes me suspicious is the large difference in the test results, that either means something is wrong with the test or something is wrong with the semaphores. From reading the discussion I still don't really know, why the improvements to mutexes can't be applied to semaphores. I also haven't hardly seen any discussion about why semaphores the way they are. Linus did suspect there is a wakeup bug in the semaphore, but there was no conclusive followup to that. IMO there are still too many questions open, so I can understand Andrew. We may only cover up the problem instead of fixing it. I understand that mutexes have advantages, but if we compare them to semaphores it should be a fair comparison, otherwise people start to think semaphores are something bad. The majority of the discussion has been about microoptimisation, but on some archs non-debug mutexes and semaphores may very well be the same thing. bye, Roman - 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/