This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> Date: 05 May 2000 09:59:49 -0700 Mark Kettenis <kettenis@wins.uva.nl> writes: > Anyway, I've taken a look at the code in linuxthreads/spinlock.c, but > it looks to me as if your implementation is more like a fast and > simple mutex than a spin lock. In fact the only different between a > spin lock and a PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP mutex, is that you avoid the > check of the mutex type. Well, this is the only way to avoid priority inversion. If you know nothing abou the other thread contesting for the spinlock you will run into these problems. My understanding is the priority iversions must be handled gracefully. Version 3 of the Austin draft says on the page for pthread_spin_lock(): APPLICATION USAGE Applications using this function may be subject to priority inversion, as discussed in the System Interface Definitions volume of IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x, Section 3.290, Priority Inversion. So this seems to be not the case. Mark
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |