From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 20 12:28:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E8E16A4CE for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD2643D1F for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:28:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i1KKSASQ004828; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:28:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:28:10 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cross-thread locking X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:28:12 -0000 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