Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)

[Howard Chu]

David Schwartz wrote:
> 	We don't agree on what the specification says.
>
>   
> > Why do you suppose that is?
> >     
>
> 	Why do I suppose what? I find the specification perfectly clear and your
> reading of it incredibly strained for the three reasons I stated.
>   

Oddly enough, you said 
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/28b58e91886a3602?hl=en&;
"Unfortunately, it sounds reasonable"  so I can't lend credence to your 
stating that my reading is incredibly strained. The fact that 
LinuxThreads historically adhered to my reading of it lends more weight 
to my argument. The fact that people accepted this interpretation for so 
many years lends further weight. In light of this, it is your current 
interpretation that is incredibly strained, and I would say, broken.

You have essentially created a tri-state mutex. (Locked, unlocked, and 
sort-of-unlocked-but-really-reserved.) That may be a good and useful 
thing in its own right, but it should not be the default behavior.

--
 -- Howard Chu
 Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
 Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc
 OpenLDAP Core Team            http://www.openldap.org/project/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/