From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 17 11:23: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB28637B6A4 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:22:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 22327 invoked by uid 1142); 17 Jan 2001 19:22:43 -0000 Date: 17 Jan 2001 11:22:43 -0800 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:22:32 -0800 From: Jason Evans To: John Baldwin Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: await/asleep removal imminent Message-ID: <20010117112232.U61852@canonware.com> References: <20010117100954.S61852@canonware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:55:09AM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 10:55:09AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 17-Jan-01 Jason Evans wrote: > Well, it will be unused if we axe all tsleep's in favor of cv's which does > incur extra overhead, as each cv has to be init'd and destroy'd and carries a > linked list around with it. The extra storage overhead doesn't outweight the > speed increase (from lack of the hash lookup) in all cases I think, so I'm not > sure we want to axe tsleep() just yet. If you axe tsleep() then asleep() can > be emulated by either passing cv's around between functions. I didn't say anything about axing tsleep() right now. That may happen in the future, but not before 5.0. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message