Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 03:07:25 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> Cc: Charles Mott <cmott@srv.net>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: flock() question Message-ID: <199711281107.DAA14169@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Nov 1997 23:51:22 MST." <Pine.BSF.3.95.971127234335.27255C-100000@alive.znep.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Hmm. It looks like if you have multiple processes blocked on the >same lock in FreeBSD (well, 2.2 anyway), they are all woken up when >the lock is freed. Yes, only one will get the lock but they will >all be woken. Unless I am reading the code wrong... This is in >contrast to multiple processes blocking in accept(), where only >one will be woken up. The optimized wakeup case for accept() is that way because I optimized it. :-) You're probably right about flock(), but I haven't gotten around to looking at that and other potential wakeup optimizations. Changes like that have to be made with great care...what seems obvious often doesn't turn out that way. :-) -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711281107.DAA14169>