Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:31:28 -0600 From: "Brian Smith" <dbsoft@technologist.com> To: "Daniel Eischen" <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Are SysV semaphores thread-safe on CURRENT? Message-ID: <20021119043130.WWGB397.mail1-0.chcgil.ameritech.net@bbs> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10211182130110.12758-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:33:38 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen wrote: >[ I assume you mean semop, semctl, not sema_* or sem_* ] Yes ... semop() specifically is causing the problems... >Sure SysV semaphores are thread-safe. When a thread blocks on >one, the entire process blocks (no threads run). You won't >get any safer than that ;-) Yikes that isn't good. Is that only in STABLE? or does CURRENT do that as well? I guess I'll have to protect the semop() call with a pthread mutex to prevent two threads locking a single semaphore by the same process (creating a deadlock situation). Is this the recommended method of preventing these problems? (the SysV semaphore is protecting shared memory accessed by multiple processes). Thanks for the info... it explains alot! Brian Smith To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021119043130.WWGB397.mail1-0.chcgil.ameritech.net>