Alan Cox has just started passing around some code that starts on the breakdown of the GKL
I suggest that all intersted parties go to the SMP list if they wish to take part in this action. On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, David E. Cross wrote: > > > I think mutex is the way to go. I am 100% for it, and I think now that this > > problem is getting a good deal of light we should start to do something > > about > > it. > > > > One of the problems with locks that doesn't seem to have been mentioned > > (although I am sure many have thought it) is deadlocks. You get A waiting > > for B and b with A. With mutexi (plural?) you would lock just the resource > > that you are curently working on, and you would be guaranteed to release it > > (if the programmers do it right, of course ;). The advantage is with Mutex > > is that you don't need to be as omnipotent to use it. > > Did you forget the fact that in order to remove a giant lock set up, so > that you go one step, or multiple steps, below that, the locks below the > giant lock must ALL be there, no mistakes or omissions allowed. > > It's well worth doing, but it's not a deal like adding just one lock, no > sir! > > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data > chu...@picnic.mat.net | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. > 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | > Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic and jaunt, both FreeBSD-current. > (301) 220-2114 | > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
