Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:28:10 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cross-thread locking Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402201525290.3738-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10402200935470.23368-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Daniel Eischen wrote: > I can't find a rationale for spinlocks; I _thought_ there was > one in some draft of the spec that I had read. I wouldn't > really advocate using spinlocks due to possible priority > inversion problems and wasting cycles. Found it. It's in the Rationale -> System Interfaces -> General Info. Here's a link that might get you there: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/xrat/xsh_chap02.html#tag_03_02_09 -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10402201525290.3738-100000>