Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 22:13:56 -0700 From: Aaron Smith <aaron-fbsd@mutex.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com, julian@whistle.com, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: high-efficiency SMP locks - submission for review Message-ID: <199906280513.WAA48515@sigma.veritas.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:07:33 EDT." <199906272307.TAA21317@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:07:33 EDT, Daniel Eischen writes: >> 2/ Before we rush off and implement a new set of locking primatives, >> it might be a good idea to look at the locking primatives of a few >> other OS's.. For example Linux and MACH, and if we can get hold of >> them, Solaris and maybe the exokernel. (and sprite) > >The Vahalia book (UNIX Internals - The New Frontiers) has a pretty >good synopsis of locking systems used by various OSs (see chapter >7). At least from the programmers interface, I really like the >Solaris API (kernel mutexes and condition variables) - they are >well understood and easy to use. i want to chime in and agree with this statement. i work on a commercial filesytem for (among other platforms) solaris; and i'd have to say that of the platforms i have been exposed to, solaris' kernel synch primitives are very comfortable to use. the function of an "rwlock" is immediately understood by anybody who understands reader-writer locks. mutex, condition variables, etc are all very accessible ideas. for this reason i think it's counterproductive to use opaque names such as "qlock". it's the same reason i have an issue with "lockmgr". i'm happy to see activity in this area! aaron 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?199906280513.WAA48515>