Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 00:43:39 -0800 From: rookie <asmrookie@gmail.com> To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Use turnstile to implement sx_lock Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10512160043g2777a8f9t@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10512160041x7fd719bej@mail.gmail.com> References: <1fa17f810512150652h5da6a6a5g3347f841a614689e@mail.gmail.com> <200512151257.22004.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10512151109w22ef9e2aj@mail.gmail.com> <200512152125.16004.max@love2party.net> <3bbf2fe10512160041x7fd719bej@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> After some thinking this strikes me as wrong. You must not grant a slock > attempt if there is a thread with a higher priority waiting to get a xloc= k. > This does not mean that your approach doesn't work, but you have to keep > this > in mind. Yes, it's right. [snip] > > It seems to me that you are talking about the same things with slightly > different implementation details. It doesn't really matter much where th= e > queue of slocking threads is kept as long as it is easily and efficient t= o > update the turnstile's owner on sunlock. In practice it should be easier= to > have it in the turnstile as well and I still don't really understand why = you > (rookie) do not want to change turnstiles. In order to mantain current code for mutex (less changes mean less problems= ). However I think that a good start point would be writing code for a new primitive (as John and Max suggested) and I will concentrate my work there. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10512160043g2777a8f9t>