From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 17 05:11:49 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB39106564A;
	Sat, 17 May 2008 05:11:49 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94358FC13;
	Sat, 17 May 2008 05:11:48 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.netplex.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id
	m4H5Bkg6026860; Sat, 17 May 2008 01:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net)
X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-4.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]);
	Sat, 17 May 2008 01:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 01:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080517015023.GM32532@elvis.mu.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805170102090.7835@sea.ntplx.net>
References: <482B0297.2050300@icyb.net.ua> <482BBA77.8000704@freebsd.org>
	<482BF5EA.5010806@icyb.net.ua> <20080516201555.GL32532@elvis.mu.org>
	<alpine.BSF.1.10.0805161522070.80796@pkunk.americas.sgi.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0805161724360.5088@sea.ntplx.net>
	<20080517015023.GM32532@elvis.mu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>,
	Brent Casavant <b.j.casavant@ieee.org>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: thread scheduling at mutex unlock
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 05:11:49 -0000

On Fri, 16 May 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> * Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> [080516 14:55] wrote:
>>
>> I think to be fair, the contested mutex case should try
>> to handoff the mutex, in lieu of any priority protocol
>> that is in place for the threads or mutex.  And actually,
>> I think in order to properly implement priority mutexes,
>> there must be a handoff.
>>
>
> Is this what you are saying?  Because it is what I believe.

Yes, I think so.  It doesn't seem very fair to give one thread
the ability to consistently acquire the mutex when another
thread has been waiting for it.

-- 
DE