Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:05:26 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@fxq.nl> Subject: Re: Inner workings of turnstiles and sleepqueues Message-ID: <200710191405.26488.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10710191008r6dc1939em85f8574e107af48b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071016094118.GE5411@hoeg.nl> <200710190842.34286.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10710191008r6dc1939em85f8574e107af48b@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 19 October 2007 01:08:27 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > 2007/10/19, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>: > > On Friday 19 October 2007 12:56:54 am Ed Schouten wrote: > > > * John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > The best option right now is to read the code. There are some comments in > > > > both the headers and implementation. > > > > > > Would it be useful to write manpages for these interfaces, or do we > > > assume that only godlike people can use them anyway? I am willing to > > > write manpages for them. > > > > They already exist, but they really are only used to implement higher-level > > primitives like locks and condition variables. The rest of the kernel should > > use the higher-level primitives anyway. > > Well, really turnstiles don't have manpages, but this is still OK as > they are only used in mutex while the "real" sleeping primitive should > be identified by sleepqueues. Ah, there is a sleepqueue(9), but not a turnstile(9). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710191405.26488.jhb>