From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Sep 11 22:16:11 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pike.osd.bsdi.com (pike.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D92B37B422 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:16:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jhb@localhost) by pike.osd.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA78736; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:15:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb) From: John Baldwin Message-Id: <200009120515.WAA78736@pike.osd.bsdi.com> Subject: Re: Long-term mutex ownership (was Re: Interruptable mutex aquires.) In-Reply-To: <20000912143855.O88615@wantadilla.lemis.com> from Greg Lehey at "Sep 12, 2000 02:38:55 pm" To: Greg Lehey Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Chuck Paterson , Jason Evans , arch@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL68 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Greg Lehey wrote: > The general consensus (which I currently don't yet share) is that we > should use condition variables for things like async event waits. I'm > still looking for a consistent definition of condition variables, and > how they differ from "mutexes". Go grab Andrew S. Tannebaum's (sp?) _Modern_Operating_Systems_. One of the first chapters gives execellent treatment to comparing/contrasting mutexes, semaphores, condition variables, and sleep/wakeup. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.cslab.vt.edu/~jobaldwi/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message