Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:13:10 -0700 From: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: socket buffers and condition variables Message-ID: <0GWU003BXDPGNP@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> In-Reply-To: Message from John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> "of Tue, 28 May 2002 17:32:26 EDT." <XFMail.20020528173226.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> well, that won't be a valid assumption for bug so long anyways as > cv's wont' have their own queue forever but will probably share their > queue's with tsleep in the future. It's an implementation detail. John is right. This is the way Solaris implements condition variables, for example. > I don't care if you use cv's instead of sleep/wakeup since cv's are > often used with mutexes I do. I think we should stick w/ sleep/wakeup unless there's a good reason to change the code. There are places where condition variables are the better choice, by design and not by implementation detail, but this isn't one of them. > reduced contention isn't really a valid reason to use them. Since this task is A. questionable B. not needed to lock up the networking stack can we remove it from the SMP todo roadmap? We can always do it later if it does turn out to be a good idea. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0GWU003BXDPGNP>