On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 05:19 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 22:00 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> > P.S.:
> > Btw, I found some code that uses a semop with 2 ops:
> > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=%2Fapis%2Fapiexusmem.htm
>
> I recent
On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 22:00 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> P.S.:
> Btw, I found some code that uses a semop with 2 ops:
> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=%2Fapis%2Fapiexusmem.htm
I recently analyzed rt traces containing 9 ops.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from t
On 05/25/2013 08:32 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Yep, could you please explain what benefits you see in keeping FIFO order?
a) It's user space visible.
b) It's a well-defined behavior that might even make sense for some
applications.
Right now, a 2 semop operation with "+1, then -2" is prior
On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 13:55 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 05/25/2013 11:16 AM, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > The double coward solution:
> > - wakeup stays FIFO
> > - fast switch back to per-semaphore spinlock mode
> >
> > The patch
> > a) fixes a lockup due to a missing restart.
> > b) makes the wak
On 05/25/2013 11:16 AM, Manfred Spraul wrote:
The double coward solution:
- wakeup stays FIFO
- fast switch back to per-semaphore spinlock mode
The patch
a) fixes a lockup due to a missing restart.
b) makes the wakeups again FIFO (as linux <= 3.0.9)
c) tries to limit the time while in global loc
5 matches
Mail list logo
