Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:06:33 -0700 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com> Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary Message-ID: <20000626110633.F8965@blitz.canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <200006261646.e5QGkUS06290@lor.watermarkgroup.com>; from luoqi@watermarkgroup.com on Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 12:46:30PM -0400 References: <200006261646.e5QGkUS06290@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 12:46:30PM -0400, Luoqi Chen wrote: > > Compared with the use of tsleep(), mutexes have a number of > > advantages: > > > > - Each mutex has its own wait (sleep) queue. When a process releases > > a mutex, it automatically schedules the next process waiting on the > > queue. This is more efficient than searching a possibly very long, > > linear sleep queue. It also avoids the flooding when multiple > > processes get scheduled, and most of them have to go back to sleep > > again. > > > What about processes of different priorities blocking for the same mutex? > Would you do a linear search on the queue? or have the queue sorted by > priority? or a FIFO queue is good enough? Processes that block on a mutex are granted the lock in FIFO order, rather than priority order. In order to avoid priority inversion, the mutex wait queue implements priority lending. Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000626110633.F8965>