Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:24:25 -0700 From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Long-term mutex ownership (was Re: Interruptable mutex aquires.) Message-ID: <20000911192425.B31089@blitz.canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <20000912114154.H88615@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:41:54AM %2B0930 References: <200009111815.MAA21525@berserker.bsdi.com> <20000911114746.G12231@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000912114154.H88615@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:41:54AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > I think we need to come to some kind of consensus about how we are > going to structure locking before we go into this much detail. At the > moment we don't even agree whether we can hold on to (blocking) > mutexes for long periods of time. I don't recall the original argument against holding mutexes for long periods. From an abstract point of view, there's nothing wrong with such practice, and in fact it makes sense for many problems. Is there an issue with our implementation? If so, can someone please explain it? Thanks, Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000911192425.B31089>