From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 16 05:08:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAEE16A41F for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:08:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kamalpr@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.198]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9610243D46 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:08:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kamalpr@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 70so1021166wra for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:08:47 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=mU5lvnLWE1XaF2Zdsrl8I0gU6nCJUgRzld1OuvkgIZehnZLDEWfwQIWJBuhhVmKAIQCadIqlPP2/NMiunFps52ylF9WgT5TDoHUWG/8SI6IlOT1reA9vUDQkPHdCKWPRAf2ESPSxJ9nc3k/DhDW7sSt2WWFg7FnwKf5zHW6h6FQ= Received: by 10.65.186.11 with SMTP id n11mr2564119qbp; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:08:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.43.10 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:08:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:38:47 +0530 From: "Kamal R. Prasad" To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200601131422.15208.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1fa17f810601122232l25551bc5n4e4a01ff6b7921e@mail.gmail.com> <1fa17f810601130220h521590banff7d775a8bd4eaa6@mail.gmail.com> <200601131422.15208.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, prime Subject: Re: How priority propagation works on read/write lock? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: kamalp@acm.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:08:49 -0000 you mean, boosting the priority of a reader would be required to avoid priority inversion, but difficult to implement? regards -kamal On 1/14/06, John Baldwin wrote: > I think you just kind of punt and do a best effort. Trying to manage a > list > of current read lock holders would be a bit PITA.