Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:22:58 +0200 | From | Patrick MOUROT <> | Subject | Re: mutexs for synchronization between kernel threads? |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Johannes Erdfelt <jerdfelt@sventech.com> writes: > > > > I guess what I want are spinlocks, but the kernel spinlock > > implementation seems to be created for protecting across multiple CPU's, > > not across multiple context's of execution (thread's) > > If you don't sleep in the critical region you don't need any locks > at all on UP (except against the interrupt). Linux uses cooperative > multitasking in the kernel. > > -Andi > -- > This is like TV. I don't like TV. > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hello,
Sorry for disturbing....but i have a hot (at least for us) question : Do you encounter any Priority Inversion or deadlock with Mutexes or Semaphores (regarding to spinlock) ??
TIA,
Patrick
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |