Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:25:43 -0700 From: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@unixhelp.org>, Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: synch primitives (was Re: Microsoft performance) Message-ID: <199906250125.SAA27855@sigma.veritas.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:14:19 CDT." <Pine.BSF.3.96.990624195759.14320F-100000@cygnus.rush.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:14:19 CDT, Alfred Perlstein writes: >I'm not sure what you mean by the refernce to malloc types, I just >thought something along the lines of mutex_t with an API >for trying, allocating, freeing and initializing them. i'd really like to implement some of the basic solaris primitives: mutex, cv (condition variable), sema p/v. i sent a message to the smp list on this at one point but didn't get much of a response other than cranky noises about "super fine-grained locking isn't worth it". what i'd like to see is the groundwork laid for finER locking so that we can gradually break up the points of contention. mutex/cv/sema are intuitive and taught in every OS course; i don't feel "simple_lock" or "lockmgr" are desirable or adequate. i'm willing to work on it, but i can't get to it for at least a couple of months, so i'm hoping someone else wants to work on it too. aaron To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906250125.SAA27855>