From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 15 12: 0:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from oden.exmandato.se (oden.exmandato.se [192.71.33.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B33C37BE4C for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:00:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jonas.bulow@servicefactory.se) Received: from servicefactory.se (root@oden.exmandato.se [192.71.33.1]) by oden.exmandato.se (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA27281; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:41:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <39998ED9.561D9751@servicefactory.se> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:41:31 +0200 From: Jonas Bulow X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Polstra Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPC, shared memory, syncronization AND threads... References: <39943C37.76D2DBCC@servicefactory.se> <3995431A.324F8C89@servicefactory.se> <200008121639.JAA63479@vashon.polstra.com> <3997BD3E.2B65AD19@servicefactory.se> <200008151613.JAA04129@vashon.polstra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG John Polstra wrote: > > In article <3997BD3E.2B65AD19@servicefactory.se>, Jonas Bulow > wrote: > > John Polstra wrote: > Actually I thought about this some more, and I'm not all that sure > it's possible. I haven't actually _tried_ it, but I think you'd end > up needing a low-level mutex around parts of the code. That would > have to be implemented as a spinlock, which is exactly what we're > trying to avoid in this exercise. What do you mean with low-level mutex? I mean, how low is low? :-) After doing some more thinking about the cmpxchgl-lock, it's quite hard to use it together with a technique involving the kernel. It will be a contradiction in many ways. I would be nice to have kqueue a EVFILT_MEM and wait for the contents of a memory adress contain a specific value (or other condition like threshold, range entrance/leaving). Then it can be used to wait for the adress used with cmpxchgl. Well, this was just thinking for this very moment. > > > don't know it it's bad design to have rtld.c export > > lockdflt_init in the same way as dlopen, what di you think? > > Right, bad design. :-) just cheking.. :-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message