On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
quoted text
> On Wednesday 29 December 2010 15:42:36 Hillf Danton wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 28 December 2010 16:51:30 Daniel Walker wrote:
>> >> We for sure don't want new semaphores, or new semaphore usage in the
>> >> kernel ..
>>
>> Would you please, Daniel, explain why there are so my file systems under
>> the fs directory? Would you think the ext file system is better than others?
>
> Most of the file systems are for compatibility with other operating systems.
> The ones that duplicate Linux-only functionality are there in order to provide
> backwards-compatibility with existing users. We can't remove them in the
> same way that we would remove code that is only used in the kernel itself.
>
>> And why there are in kernel spin lock, read/write lock, mutex, rw_mutex,
>> rtmutx, and semaphore
>
> There are more of these, and they partly exist because it has been hard
> to change all the old users. We did remove some others though.
>
>> timer and hrtimer?
>>
>> Could timer be removed tonight?
>
> These two are subtly different, timers are optimized for not expiring, while
> hrtimer is optimized for actually expiring.
>
>> > Yes. I once even tried unifying the semaphore and rwsem implementation,
>> > but gave up on that for a number of reasons.
>>
>> It looks hard to change rwsem, almost impossible, since it is based upon
>> asm, at least under the x86 dir.
>
> That could be changed using the C implementation everywhere,
> but there are other problems.
>
>> >> It should also be noted that the rtmutex (kernel/rtmutex.c) already has
>> >> this capability. Although I don't think you can use an rtmutex from
>> >> inside the kernel.
>> >
>> > I wasn't aware we had already grown another one ;-)
>> >
>> > AFAICT, you can only use it inside of the kernel, but it's very
>> > specific and I wouldn't recommend using it unless a regular mutex
>> > cannot be used for some reason. The only user besides the futex
>> > code seems to be the i2c layer at this moment.
>> >
>> >> If you really want this you should look into the rtmutex, and the
>> >> regular mutex API's .
>>
>> But greping "struct semaphore" include/linux and fs dirs may tell us
>> more about semaphore.
>
> There are three classes of semaphore users today:
>
> 1. Those that initialize the semaphore to >1, guarding access to a
>   resource that has multiple users: acpi/osl, mthca, mlx4, megaraid,
>   comedi/vmk80xx, udlfb, usblc, usb-skeleton, blizzard, hwa742, and 9p.
> 2. Those that use the semaphore as some sort of completion, or a combination
>   of completion and mutex.
> 3. Those that can and should be converted to mutex: most of the staging
>   drivers, plus some more.
>

Great description and summary.

quoted text
> IMHO it would be nice to separate the first two classes in some way, so we
> can make the counting semaphores stricter and apply the same rules as
> mutexes and make the completion-like semaphores non-counting.
>
>> > If Hillf relies on counting semaphores, that won't work, but very
>> > few such users exist in code outside of textbooks.
>> >
>>
>> Though capable in rtmutex, why mutex should no longer stay in Kernel?
>>
>> However mutex could be changed based on hrtimer if needed for some reason.
>
> There is currently no mutex_lock_timeout(), so that would be meaningless.
>
>> --- a/kernel/mutex.c  2010-11-01 19:54:12.000000000 +0800
>> +++ b/kernel/mutex.c  2010-12-29 22:35:40.000000000 +0800
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>  #include <linux/debug_locks.h>
>> +#include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>>
>>  /*
>>   * In the DEBUG case we are using the "NULL fastpath" for mutexes,
>> @@ -248,7 +249,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock,
>>               /* didnt get the lock, go to sleep: */
>>               spin_unlock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>>               preempt_enable_no_resched();
>> -             schedule();
>> +             do {
>> +                     /* sleep 10,000 nanoseconds per loop */
>> +                     ktime_t kt = ktime_set(0, 10000);
>> +                     schedule_hrtimeout(&kt, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> +             } while (0);
>>               preempt_disable();
>>               spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
>>       }
>>
>
> Doing this would be extremely inefficient, because now the mutex wait
> function would wake up very frequently instead of just once when the

Is it waked up less than jeffy?
If not, checking more frequently in the endless loop could help receive
signal, other than that is extremely meaningless, as the holder of
mutex is not ready to release.

As to timeout, it is another story, in which waiter is able to determine
how many jiffies or nanoseconds are acceptable if waiting is necessary.

Thanks
Hillf

quoted text
> mutex has been released by another thread.
>
>        Arnd
>
--
unsubscribe notice
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/