Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:03:53 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Critical Sections for userland. Message-ID: <20071004170353.GR31826@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710040900560.9250@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20071003015231.GJ31826@elvis.mu.org> <86zlyzqmgo.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20071004094821.GM31826@elvis.mu.org> <86ejgbqjvr.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20071004101902.GN31826@elvis.mu.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0710040900560.9250@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> [071004 06:05] wrote: > > His point about telling us what you're really doing, so we might > off other ways to do it is valid. > > We don't know why you are using homegrown user-level spinlocks > instead of pthread mutexes. Priority ceiling mutexes and running > in SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO is really what tries to address this > problem, at least from the vague desciption you give. If you > have tried this and they don't work correctly, then one solution > is to fix them ;-) First of all we're stuck on 6.x, how is threads on this platform? Second off we are contending against other devices in the system that do not run FreeBSD, How do we address that? -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071004170353.GR31826>