Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:47:31 -0700 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> To: smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP meeting summary Message-ID: <200006261647.JAA07306@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000625091445.2784A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200006251736.KAA09884@usr02.primenet.com> <200006260442.WAA15731@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:42:02 -0600 (MDT), Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> wrote: > Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced, nor am I convinced that > mutex's around data structures is any different than critical > sectioning. > > They are essentially the same thing, in that the critical section is > almost always the code that deals with a particular (shared) data > structure. I'd argue that mutexes around data structures allow more concurrency than critical sections. It's the "lock the data - not code" principle. Think of the case where there are a thousand instances of the data structure and one critical section. -Arun 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?200006261647.JAA07306>