On 04/27/2015 12:31 PM, Jeff Haran wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: kernelnewbies-bounces+jharan=bytemobile.com@kernelnewbies.org [mailto:kernelnewbies- bounces+jharan=bytemobile.com@kernelnewbies.org] On Behalf Of Abhishek Bist Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 6:19 AM To: kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org Subject: Semaphore and Spinlock
[ Semaphores are a bit like spinlocks, except the holder of a semaphore is a process, not a CPU. ] This is a very first line that is bein written on the description of semaphore on kernel newbies.So what are the different parameter that could justify this statement or the way it could be justified and understood.
It makes sense to me conceptually. Say you are running some kernel code on a
multicore system and that code serializes access to some data structure via a spinlock.
If core A takes the spinlock, then core B comes along and tries to take it, core B will
No - that is completely confused. A semaphore doesn't even imply a lock. When a wait calls and the semaphore is less than zero, then the process that called wait then is put on the wait queue and essentially blocks itself. When a process signals a semaphore, it increments the semaphore and then, if the value of the semaphore is <= 0 its goes and signals the wait queue for next waiting task from the wait queue and puts in on the run queue for scheduling.
spin until core A releases the spin lock, at which point core B will hold it. Conceptually, core B is prevented from doing anything else while core A holds the spinl Now say you are running some kernel code that is executed in the context of multiple processes and that code serializes access to some data structure via a semaphore. If process A takes the semaphore, then process B comes along and tries to take it, process B will block (the core B is running on will do a context switch to some other process) until process A releases the semaphore, at which point process B will hold it and once the scheduler on B's core allows process B will start running again. Conceptually, process B is prevented from doing anything else while process A holds the semaphore. A mutex here would also apply.
Semaphore is to process like spinlock is to core, at least in this case where the semaphore is being used for mutual exclusion.
Jeff Haran
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies