Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:26:33 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com> Cc: jasone@canonware.com, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006262125550.28246-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200006261646.e5QGkUS06290@lor.watermarkgroup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, 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? The BSD/OS mutex has the queue sorted by priority. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 20 8442 9037 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006262125550.28246-100000>