From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep? From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <1FE6DD409037234FAB833C420AA843ECE9DF60@orsmsx424.amr.corp.intel.com> <1206624052.8514.570.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:59:31 +0100 Message-Id: <1206698371.8514.608.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "Luck, Tony" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 11:44 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > confusion between semaphores and rwsems > > rwsem is not a semaphore despite its name? What do you want to call it > then? Its not a real counting semaphore, a sleeping rw lock might be a better name as opposed to the contradition rw-mutex :-) But lets just call it a rwsem; we all know what that is. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org