On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 11:09:32PM +0000, Greg Lehey wrote: > - the issues with wakeup_one are due to address space clashes between > unrelated groups of threads.
> | -function > | -does not work reliably if more than one thread is sleeping on the same > address; > | -in this case it is possible for an unrelated thread to be woken. > | -This thread will ignore the wakeup, and the correct process will never be > | -woken. > | +function does not work reliably if unrelated threads are sleeping on the > same > | +address. > | +In this case, if a wakeup for one group of threads is delivered to a > member of > | +another group, that thread will ignore the wakeup, and the correct thread > will > | +never be woken up. > | +It is the programmer's responsibility to choose a unique > | +.Fa chan > | +value. > | +In case of doubt, do not use > | +.Fn wakeup_one . I don't like this recommendation, since it directs the programmer to introduce potentially serious performance bottlenecks at the expense of clear thinking about their code to avoid introducing the bug in the first place. Kris
pgpiD12tJ1V8q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
