Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 19:26:42 +0900 From: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> To: jhb@FreeBSD.org Cc: tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: select(2) converted to use a condition variable, and optimis Message-ID: <200105081026.f48AQgP75260@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Mon, 07 May 2001 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)" <XFMail.010507123722.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200105060731.f467V4g13184@silver.carrots.uucp.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <XFMail.010507123722.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 07 May 2001 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT), John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> said: John> You need the lock when clearing the bit in p_flag. That is why the proc locks John> are there, so all those proc locks need to stay. When you clear a bit, you are John> writing all the bits, so you need to ensure that you can atomically John> read/modify/write all the bits in p_flag, hence the need for the proc lock. John> Please back out the changes to not lock the process around the p_flag change. John> The rest of the patch looks ok, though I'd like to review the updated version John> before it is committed. Thanks. Process locks are now back. Here is another issue. PROC_LOCK may block to acquire a process lock, during which an event of interest may occur or the remaining time of select(2)/poll(2) may run out. Thus if the remaining time runs out during locking a process, we should first rescan file descriptors to avoid missing an event, followed by returning the result. Those changes are now in the updated patch at: >> http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/selectopt.diff -- Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <tanimura@FreeBSD.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105081026.f48AQgP75260>