Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:26:10 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Long-term mutex ownership (was Re: Interruptable mutex aquires.) Message-ID: <20000911192610.D12231@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20000911192425.B31089@blitz.canonware.com>; from jasone@canonware.com on Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:24:25PM -0700 References: <200009111815.MAA21525@berserker.bsdi.com> <20000911114746.G12231@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000912114154.H88615@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20000911192425.B31089@blitz.canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> [000911 19:24] wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:41:54AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > > I think we need to come to some kind of consensus about how we are > > going to structure locking before we go into this much detail. At the > > moment we don't even agree whether we can hold on to (blocking) > > mutexes for long periods of time. > > I don't recall the original argument against holding mutexes for long > periods. From an abstract point of view, there's nothing wrong with such > practice, and in fact it makes sense for many problems. Is there an issue > with our implementation? If so, can someone please explain it? You are currently unable to abort if a signal comes in. :) Conditional variables add overhead and complexity where it's not needed. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000911192610.D12231>