From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Sep 11 19:53:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from cs.waikato.ac.nz (taupo.cs.waikato.ac.nz [130.217.248.134]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00D537B42C; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from joerg@localhost) by cs.waikato.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA69567; Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:52:55 +1200 (NZST) (envelope-from joerg) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:52:55 +1200 From: Joerg Micheel To: Greg Lehey Cc: Matthew Jacob , Frank Mayhar , John Baldwin , Mark Murray , FreeBSD-arch@freebsd.org, joerg@cs.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf files src/sys/sys random.h src/sys/dev/randomdev hash.c hash.h harvest.c randomdev.c yarrow.c yarro Message-ID: <20000912145255.A41113@cs.waikato.ac.nz> References: <200009120101.e8C11nN56928@realtime.exit.com> <20000912121105.J88615@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20000912121105.J88615@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 12:11:05PM +0930 Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Project: WAND - Waikato Applied Network Dynamics, DAG Operating-System: ... powered by FreeBSD Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 12:11:05PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Monday, 11 September 2000 at 18:02:26 -0700, Matt Jacob wrote: > >> Greg Lehey wrote: > >>> I've been wondering whether we shouldn't associate mutexes with data > >>> structures rather than code. It's possible that it would make it > >>> easier to avoid deadlocks. Thoughts? > >> > >> Speaking as a BSD/OS (and former Unixware) developer: YES! > > > > Hmm. I would rather have assumed that this is what mutexes are > > about. Semaphores gate entry in code. Mutexes provide locking on > > data. Simple enough. > > That's a matter of definition. The big difference I see between a > semaphore and a blocking "mutex" is that there's no count associated > with the blocking "mutex": it's a degenerate case of a semaphore. > > At Tandem, we used semaphores exclusively (well, we had a mutex > instruction, but it was really interrupt lockout). As far as I can > recall, the semaphore counter was always 1, so the effect was > identical to the current blocking "mutexes". I liked the model Sun chose for Solaris. They have mutex', rw_locks, condition variables. I don't like semaphores. Mutexes are for short locks. Condition variables are for long-term waits, they are associated with a mutex. You can only sleep/wakeup a CV when holding the associated with it, which prevents races. When having to sleep on a CV the kernel would unlock the mutex and reaquire it for the running thread before returning. Joerg -- Joerg B. Micheel Email: Waikato Applied Network Dynamics Phone: +64 7 8384794 The University of Waikato, CompScience Fax: +64 7 8585095 Private Bag 3105 Pager: +64 868 38222 Hamilton, New Zealand Plan: TINE and the DAG's To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message