From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 30 23:30:48 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE54C1065677; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:30:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) Received: from lakerest.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:240:585:2:203:6dff:fe1a:4ddc]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4228FC12; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:30:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) Received: from [10.1.1.53] ([10.1.1.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by lakerest.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2UNUtu5055176 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:30:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rrs@lakerest.net) Message-Id: From: Randall Stewart To: Daniel Eischen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:30:47 -0400 References: <7D4F6788-0F12-4863-9635-7FADA9115D16@lakerest.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A mutex for inter-process ;-) X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:30:49 -0000 On Mar 30, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Randall Stewart wrote: > >> Hi all: >> >> I have recently written a small set of routines that allow >> two process to have a "mutex" between them.. actually it allows >> all of the threads in any set of processes to have mutexes between >> themselves ;-) >> >> Anyway it seems to be working fairly well.. I still have to write a >> man page >> for it (documentation always last).. and eventually I would like to >> port in >> some of the WITNESS type features since the mutex's have names.. >> >> I probably should also think about scaling it up a bit.. right now >> its really >> more for a small scale (100 or less mutexes)... >> >> Who should I talk to about getting this in... having it reviewed >> etc. I think >> it belongs in libthr since it really needs the tid of the pthreads >> from the >> pthread_t type... and for now I have a horrible hack in to get it ;-) > > The real way to do this is to support PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED > mutexes within our normal mutex, and to change our current > mutex (and cv) types to be structs instead of pointers. > The current API, other than the type change, shouldn't > change at all. So how do you propose to name the mutex's so that two disparate process can locate the same mutex? I don't see how a pthread_mutex can suffice... we need more than just the current mutex... What am I missing? R > > > -- > DE > ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell) 803-345-0391(direct)