From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Jun 26 9:48:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from sharmas.dhs.org (c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com [24.0.69.165]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8E037BBA9 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org) Received: (from adsharma@localhost) by sharmas.dhs.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07306; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:47:31 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:47:31 -0700 From: Arun Sharma Message-Id: <200006261647.JAA07306@sharmas.dhs.org> To: smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary In-Reply-To: <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com> References: <200006251736.KAA09884@usr02.primenet.com> <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com> Reply-To: adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:42:02 -0600 (MDT), Nate Williams wrote: > Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced, nor am I convinced that > mutex's around data structures is any different than critical > sectioning. > > They are essentially the same thing, in that the critical section is > almost always the code that deals with a particular (shared) data > structure. I'd argue that mutexes around data structures allow more concurrency than critical sections. It's the "lock the data - not code" principle. Think of the case where there are a thousand instances of the data structure and one critical section. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message