Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
>
> And it has everything to do with the fact that the way Linux semaphores
> are implemented, a non-blocking process has a HUGE advantage over a
> blocking one. Linux kernel semaphores are extreme unfair in that way.
>
...
> The original running process comes back faulting again, finds the
> semaphore still unlocked (the "ps" process is awake but has not gotten to
> run yet), gets the semaphore, and falls asleep on the IO for the next
> page.
>
> The "ps" process actually gets to run now, but it's a bit late. The
> semaphore is locked again.
>
> Repeat until luck breaks the bad circle.
>
But doesn't __down have a fast path coded in assembly? In other words,
it only hits your patched code if there is already contention, which
there isn't in this case, and therefore the bug...?
David Mansfield
-
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/
