Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 01:19:31 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, eivind@yes.no, jlemon@americantv.com, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syncer / SMP question Message-ID: <199802280619.BAA03691@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199802280604.XAA20809@usr05.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Feb 28, 98 06:04:10 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert said: > > > Interlocks are for very short-term locks and for locking the aquisition > > > of full locks. > > > > > One rule-of-thumb is never to block (tsleep) when you have an interlock. > > This would make a good assert for a kernel compiled with debugging > turned on... 8-). > Yep, except, the low level lockmgr still has to, but that can be hidden. I can imagine the possibility of blocking, but that could greatly complicate things. The usage of locks has to be very disciplined until we can agree on a schema. The scheme that you outlined to me is very reasonable. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802280619.BAA03691>