Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:16:50 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Acquiring a mtx after an sx lock Message-ID: <48AB0E12.8030607@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20080819152607.GA44331@sandvine.com> References: <bc2d970808180814ue926d43s7966b36ffa3c9699@mail.gmail.com> <200808181754.18812.max@love2party.net> <bc2d970808180902h1ded9bcbp494d276ede0eeed@mail.gmail.com> <20080818162411.GA77460@sandvine.com> <48A9BFED.604@elischer.org> <48A9C1B0.5010805@elischer.org> <20080819152607.GA44331@sandvine.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ed Maste wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:38:40AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > >>> Ed Maste wrote: >>>> Ahh, it seems ups' commit of rmlocks changed the "You have: sx_lock, >>>> You want: Slp_mtx" case from no to ok (in r173444). >> Ignore me.. I was reading the table backwards.. of course if you have >> an sx you can still take out a mutex, but not visa versa. > > Yep, and ups' r173444 change didn't affect this at all, it just > corrected the table. > > If I don't hear otherwise I'll merge the changes to the table to 7 > sometime soon: > > You have: You want: Spin_mtx Slp_mtx sx_lock rw_lock sleep > - SPIN mutex ok no no no no-3 > + SPIN mutex ok-1 no no no no-3 > Sleep mutex ok ok-1 no ok no-3 > - sx_lock ok no ok-2 no ok-4 > + sx_lock ok ok ok-2 ok ok-4 > rw_lock ok ok no ok-2 no-3 > > Have SPIN / want SPIN adds the "Recursion is defined per lock" footnote. > > Have sx / want Slp & have sx / want rw change from no to ok. I agree > > - Ed > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48AB0E12.8030607>