Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:41:53 +0300 From: "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dumb KSE question Message-ID: <003501c348ad$a599fba0$812a40c1@PETEX31> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307121222150.87910-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Assuming that the ioctl blocks. > netgraph doesn; impliment ioctls so I don't see how I have a device which talks netgraph (similar to ng_device) so ioctl´s are available across the device. > this si a netgraph question, unless the netgraph node is CALLING > code that blocks.. > (which would be a no-no) The cv I´m talking about would be signaled by a device driver which shares some memory with the netgraph device node and the question is about if in the ng_device like thing I can have the d_ioctl_t block on the cv. > > > > > How expensive in relative terms is cv_signal? Should I moderate calls to > > it if the above works fine othervise? In most cases the wait list would > > be empty, so the question more or less is if I should have a separate > > indication > > Userland cv stuff is relatively cheap in linkse. A bit more expensive in > libthr but still cheap. How about in kernel. I suppose I cannot share cv´s between kernel and userland so I need to cross into kernel to wait on a kernel cv? > > Are you talking anout kernel or userland CVs? > I need more info to understand the question.. > In this case kernel but I the information on userland is useful too. Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003501c348ad$a599fba0$812a40c1>