Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:47:37 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/aac aac.c src/sys/dev/acpica/Osd OsdSchedule.c src/sys/dev/amr amr.c src/sys/dev/mly mly.c src/sys/kern subr_taskqueue.c src/sys/sys taskqueue.h Message-ID: <20011026094417.B549-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200110260632.f9Q6WLn96425@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > jhb 2001/10/25 23:32:21 PDT > > Modified files: > sys/dev/aac aac.c > sys/dev/acpica/Osd OsdSchedule.c > sys/dev/amr amr.c > sys/dev/mly mly.c > sys/kern subr_taskqueue.c > sys/sys taskqueue.h > Log: > Add locking to taskqueues. There is one mutex per task, one mutex per > queue, and a mutex to protect the global list of taskqueues. The only > visible change is that a TASK_DESTROY() macro has been added to mirror > the TASK_INIT() macro to destroy a task before it is free'd. > > Submitted by: Andrew Reiter <awr@watson.org> Thats a lot of mutexes. Wouldn't it be better to use a mutex pool for tasks? That would avoid the need for TASK_DESTROY too. Tasks were intended to be extremely lightweight, small objects with a stable ABI. This also forces them to depend on the mutex ABI. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011026094417.B549-100000>