Re: Subject: [PATCH 2/2] priority System V Semaphores

[Raz]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 22:48 +0200, raz ben yehuda wrote:
>> Vxworks is the use case. And there are plenty of companies with
>> vxWorks software and in i believe they will migrate sooner or later to
>> PreemptRT.  My current company uses old wrapper software that implements
>> vxWorks semaphores as system V semaphores. vxWorks semaphores have a priority
>> feature which is widely used.
>> I will probably change it some time in the future to posix semaphores , but posix
>> semaphores are implemented in glibc with futexes and atomic ops and i rather
>> mess with kernel and not glibc. funny , but true. glibc is harder.
>
> Semaphores are a fscking trainwreck for real-time programming. Don't use
> them, full stop. If you do, you're doing it wrong, it's really that
> simple.
>
> Use PI mutexes, which are already fully supported in glibc, no extra
> patching needed.
>
> Full NAK for any and all priority fudging for any semaphore
> implementation.
please correct me if am wrong, " posix semaphores
are implemented with pi mutex. ..?" I need a counting semaphore.
vxWorks priority/fifo semaphores are different from posix semaphores in
that the behaviour is defined on the semaphore and not the thread.
Q: what happens if I want one posix semahore to be FIFO and another
posix semaphore to be PRIO while both are used by the same
thread.should i to change policies each time ?
--
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/