From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 31 08:59:12 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 8352216A4DA for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:59:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mykola.stryebkov@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0102.google.com (wx-out-0102.google.com [66.249.82.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C9F43D46 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:59:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mykola.stryebkov@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id t12so159263wxc for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:59:11 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:from; b=L/eLnLM3KsSnqBesmEwwqE22G+tEplfmfc5i3dCy2mWQCWFZwiFGoGiDxiDDS3cZdpDhNQeNM/ELAdw8Nm3R5z10wVU0J2zR2xAU7gKkcGa/PoZZ9pEE0+KTzELgZQf/JZ39XWKEFGJwG/jAZsfq+S7hzk9j0bdOSzNFpWGMG+M= Received: by 10.70.133.8 with SMTP id g8mr2433276wxd; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ( [67.19.231.54]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id i13sm1473925wxd.2006.07.31.01.59.08; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:59:06 +0300 To: Intron Message-ID: <20060731085906.GA869@taran.infoua.com.ua> Mail-Followup-To: nick@humgat.org, Intron , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20060730105731.GA64955@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20060730200354.GA82547@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-u Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i From: mykola.stryebkov@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: VM question related to faults X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:59:12 -0000 On 31.07.2006 14:12:20, Intron wrote: > Mutex(9) is sometimes too heavy, and has many limitations, while sx(9) > is somewhat enough. First paragraph from sx(9) manual says: Shared/exclusive locks are used to protect data that are read far more often than they are written. Mutexes are inherently more efficient than shared/exclusive locks, so shared/exclusive locks should be used prudently. -- Nick Strebkov Public key: http://humgat.org/~nick/pubkey.txt fpr: 552C 88D6 895B 6E64 F277 D367 8A70 8132 47F5 C1B6