Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:37:32 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Replace completions with semaphores |
| |
* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 07:05:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > i very much agree with the "get rid of semaphores" argument - the > > reason why i initially supported the "move to generic semaphores" > > step was because i saw it basically as the precursor to full > > removal: it is the removal of semaphores from all architectures - > > with a small generic compatibility wrapper to handle the remaining > > few uses of semaphores. > > Hm. I thought you initially supported it because it deleted so much > code. [...]
... sorry, but i always thought of semaphores to be removed completely.
> [...] I don't want to go and add down_killable() to each architecture > again, and you were pretty enthusiastic about adding down_killable().
... the killable sleeps should and are already propagated everywhere - i never thought of them as a semaphore-only feature.
killable sleeps are probably the next best thing to true interruptability.
btw., has anyone thought about killable sync/fsync syscalls - would that surprise too many programs?
> > i got thoroughly surprised by the "increase the scope of semaphores" > > angle to the patchset though, and in hindsight i'd rather see > > neither of those generalizations and see semaphores die a slow but > > sure natural death than to see their prolongation :-/ > > I'm fully in favour of reducing the number of semaphore users, and > eventually eliminating them. Arjan and I discussed a way to do that > just now ... I'll write some code, see how it looks.
cool!
Ingo
| |