From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan  3 20:07:35 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 5895A16A41F;
	Tue,  3 Jan 2006 20:07:35 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB2943D53;
	Tue,  3 Jan 2006 20:07:34 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.ntplx.net (8.13.5/8.13.5/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id k03K7XHp026654; 
	Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:07:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:07:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <43BAD6FB.9090006@samsco.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0601031506120.525-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, prime <guomingyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: An idea of remove MUTEX_WAKE_ALL
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:07:35 -0000

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Scott Long wrote:

> > for a bit if the current lock owner is running on another CPU?
> > Do we currently do that?
> >
> > (*) No, I am not referring to spin mutexes.
> >
>
> Adaptive mutexes are enabled by default and have been for at least a
> year.

Ahh, then that's what they (Adaptive) do.

-- 
DE