Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 22:44:21 +0200 (MET DST) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: julian@whistle.com, julian@alpo.whistle.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WHy does Appache eat my system? Message-ID: <199705312044.WAA22410@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <199705311825.LAA10995@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at May 31, 97 11:25:00 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Secondly, the identifier used in tsleep/wakeup is actually hashed
> > and collisions might occur. Since the hash table is relatively
> > small (128 entries) collisions are not that unlikely.
>
> This is an error. The usage of the tsleep() family of functions
> requires that a unique sleep address be treated uniquely. I think
> maybe you are misreading the code.
you are very right, I did not see a test "if (p->p_wchan == ident) {"
in wakeup().
> SVR4 implements a "wakeone" function in addition to "wakeup". For
> the reasons noted in my other post, this is not an optimal soloution.
There appears to be a wakeup_one() function in the same file as
wakeup(), but it is never used (or so it seems, after grepping the
source tree).
Cheers
Luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705312044.WAA22410>