Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:41:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:41:28 -0500 Received: from mail.loewe-komp.de ([62.156.155.230]:50952 "EHLO mail.loewe-komp.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:41:23 -0500 Message-ID: <3C875FD1.4040904@loewe-komp.de> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:40:49 +0100 From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=E4chtler?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010923 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rusty Russell CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hubertus Franke , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: furwocks: Fast Userspace Read/Write Locks In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rusty Russell wrote: > This is a userspace implementation of rwlocks on top of futexes. > With the futex approach in mind: Does anybody think it's desirable to have pthread_cond_wait/signal and pthread_mutex_* with inter process scope build into the kernel as system call? The only issue I see so far, is that libpthread should get a "reserved" namespace entry ( /dev/shm/.linuxthreads-locks ?) to hold all the PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARE locks/condvars. OTOH Irix seems to implement inter process locks as syscall, so that the kernel does all the bookkeeping. That approach denies a malicious program to trash all locks in the system... Hmh, then we could implement a per user /dev/shm/.linuxthreads-lock- with tight permissions? What do you think? - 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/