From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 5 12:08:46 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA29319 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:08:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29307 for ; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 12:08:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (haldjas.folklore.ee [172.17.2.1] (may be forged)) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.8/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA07283; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:07:20 +0200 (EET) Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:07:19 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Nate Williams cc: Terry Lambert , Wes =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peters=D4?=?=?iso-8859-1?Q?=40=21=EA?=? , bright@hotjobs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: question about re-entrancy. In-Reply-To: <199901051946.MAA09199@mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [snip] > > The problem with object locks is that it puts > > objects that don't really need to be in a contention > > domain into one in order to satisfy contention in what > > are usually very small critical sections having to do > > with list manipulation of pointers to the object. > > So you're claiming that the 'Big Giant Lock' is the better way? You > can't have it both ways. > > > > Nate The third way (about which Terry did talk) is to have locks around critical sections. Sander There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future - all these are just illusions. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message