On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:05:34 +0000 Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think any solution to this would require threads to indicate what > they are going to do once they have waited. You already (sort of) have this from an API perspective. VnWaitExclusiveState_r and VnWaitQuiescent_r could effectively be "wait so I can read" and "wait so I can write/excl". Obviously not to the extent of expressing what specific state we're going to, but for just "how exclusive do I need this" we know. > I'd welcome input from others more familiar with this code as to > whether this is actually a problem, or if I'm missing something with > the pthread condvar implementation that mitigates the problem. Yeah, that sounds fine. I can't speak to the effectiveness of any difference it would make; almost all of our current locking/signalling strategies broadcast, do they not? (But the situations are a bit different, here.) But sure, no reason not to do something in this area. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
