Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:40:44 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New "timeout" api, to replace callout Message-ID: <5077.1199443244@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:48:37 %2B0100." <3bbf2fe10801030748u28fe346byd051cecfa55cf636@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <3bbf2fe10801030748u28fe346byd051cecfa55cf636@mail.gmail.com>, "Atti lio Rao" writes: >2008/1/3, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: >> What I'm proposing is that your thread will sleep on a plain, but >> unrelated mutex (internal to the timeout code) until the function >> comes back. >> >> Based on your description above, you won't be able to tell the >> any difference between this and what you wish for. > >This will be hardly feasible. >Internal callout subsystem locks probabilly need to be spinlocks in >order to avoid lock mismatches against sleepable locks. callouts will not be allowed to sleep, they never should have been able to. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5077.1199443244>