On Tue, 22 May 2001 07:56:52 -0700 (PDT),
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
John On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2001 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT),
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
John On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This
On 23-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
The issue of both of the solutions briefed above is that the p_pgrp
lock protects *excess* data. It might be another solution to introduce
a new mutex (p_pgrpmtx) into struct proc to lock p_pgrp. Although
memory size costs per process, contention for p_pgrp
For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This is quite
troublesome for the following reason:
In some cases, we grab a p_pgrp via struct proc in order to, say,
access the session information of the process group. In other cases,
we traverse the members of a process group in order to, say,
On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This is quite
troublesome for the following reason:
Err, it doesn't really. It's mostly undecided at this point. Also, have you
looked at the BSD/OS code on builder? They have process groups and sessions
On Tue, 22 May 2001 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT),
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
John On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This is quite
troublesome for the following reason:
John Err, it doesn't really. It's mostly undecided at this point. Also,
On Tue, 22 May 2001 21:58:10 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura tanimura said:
Seigo On Tue, 22 May 2001 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT),
Seigo John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
John On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This is quite
troublesome for the following
On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2001 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT),
John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
John On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This is quite
troublesome for the following reason:
John Err, it doesn't really.
