C11 Re: [PATCH 3/6] termios: Use C11 mutex for input/output
sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Tue Dec 20 06:09:16 UTC 2016
On 19/12/16 22:31, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 19/12/2016 17:32, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 16/12/16 21:50, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> If the same storage model and performance can be gained with POSIX why
>>> not look at moving in this direction.
>> We should change the POSIX synchronization objects
>> * mutexes,
>> * rwlocks,
>> * barriers,
>> * condition variables,
>> * keys, and
>> * semaphores
>> into self-contained objects from my point of view.
> Why has threads been left off?
Providing self-contained threads would be considerable more work. You
have to deal with the stack and thread-local storage with a link-time
>> Since the POSIX types
>> are now defined in a system-specific header file, this is quite easy:
>> Its about a man week of work to do this.
>> The performance will be not optimal, since we have to check if we
>> actually have a non-recursive, recursive, ceiling or robust mutex.
> What is optimal performance?
In case of mutexes the implementation that yields the most
acquire/release operations per second for an uncontested mutex.
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP : Public key available on request.
Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
More information about the devel