Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 10:55:01 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Andrew.Gordon@net-tel.co.uk, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PATCHES: NFS server locking support Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970513105043.16734B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199705121908.MAA08042@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 May 1997, Terry Lambert wrote: > I expected to handle the blocking locks using one of three methods: > > 1) The semantic override. Because the locks are asserted > using (struct flock).l_rsys != RSYS_LOCAL (0), we could > decide to generate select() events for the fd's on which > there were outstanding locks. > > 2) The async call gate. Ideally, all potentially blocking > system calls should be usable using an async vs. sync trap > mechanism that cretes an aio context record for the call. > This is actually the ideally method of implementing a > Unversity of Washington style user space threading system, > either for POSIX user space threads, or for SunOS 4.x liblwp > Light Weight Processes. An async call may be polled and > timed out using aiowait() and aiocancel(), respectively. John Dyson's working on POSIX AIO and dual concurrent threading. I'm not sure how far he's gotten though. > 3) The poll(2) interface. This interface allows for events > other than the read/write/except events allowed to select; > there were a number of people in the core team who were > talking about integrating the poll(2) code from NetBSD as > the basis for the select(2) call. A "lock event" could deal > with this. Regards, Mike Hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.970513105043.16734B-100000>