From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 10 02:14:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id CAA02045 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 02:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id CAA02040 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 02:14:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.3/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id KAA24985; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:13:43 GMT Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:13:42 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock To: Bakul Shah cc: Terry Lambert , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: clone()/rfork()/threads (Re: Inferno for FreeBSD) In-Reply-To: <199612062111.QAA22343@chai.plexuscom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Bakul Shah wrote: > BTW, you may wish to browse the NBS thread (a different kind of > thread) on comp.os.research. NBS may be something worth using > (instead of mutexs and locks) in the MP version of FreeBSD. Also > read Greenwald and Cheriton's "The Synergy Between Non-blocking > Synchronization and Operating System Structure" (accessible via > http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/Publications.html) This is pretty interesting. Here's a quote from one of Greenwald's postings: "Blocking synchronization commits you to allowing the first person to acquire the lock to finish, and everyone else is blocked. Non-blocking synchronization allows you to reconsider who the "lock-owner" should be at any point during the operation." Regards, Mike Hancock