[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores ..
From: |
Steven Bosscher |
Subject: |
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .. |
Date: |
19 Feb 2003 12:31:32 +0100 |
Op wo 19-02-2003, om 12:24 schreef Lars Segerlund:
>
> I have looked at libc's semaphores, but it's explicitly stated that
> they are not SMP safe ! ( even a bit unsure about how they would work
> with native linux threads ).
>
> You use a semaphore for a join in the following fashion, every thread
> which is started increases the value of the semaphore ( starts an 0 ),
> when theyre finished they atomically decrease it, and the thread which
> sets it to null uses a signal to signal the join. ( also works for
> barriers and synchronisation ).
>
> Threads which have decreased the semaphore waits on the signal, and
> the main thread can do the same.
>
> I was thinking of using a condition ( cond ) in the threading lib,
> which is easy to wait on ( not busy, so sleep on would be more
> appropriate ).
>
> / Lars Segerlund.
Have you looked at: http://www.advancedlinuxprogramming.com/ ?
IIRC they discuss lots of threaded programming issues. The book is
free.
Greetz
Steven
Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Biagio Lucini, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19
- RE: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Scott Robert Ladd, 2003/02/19
- Re: [Gomp-discuss] Decision about semaphores .., Lars Segerlund, 2003/02/19