Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:58:45 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl's and mutexes Message-ID: <20010424135845.A10320@mx.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010424134320.18652A-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from arr@watson.org on Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:47:17PM -0400 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010424131753.9817D-100000@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1010424134320.18652A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pardon an outsider's question, but what exactly are these mutex's supposed to protect? Would a reader of a sysctl value have to acquire a read lock in order to read a non-atomic value? Is the rate at which these values are set and/or read so high as to justify more than a single mutex for the lot? Are there any operations that take long enough that anything other than a spinlock is justified? Sorry if these are dumb questions - I'm just a KISS sort of guy. Barney Wolff On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:47:17PM -0400, Andrew R. Reiter wrote: > > As in being able to say that for (and this might be a bad example) > kern.timecounter.* mibs, could all share a mutex which is really "bound" > to kern.timecounter in genera. Or do you mean just more generically the > idea that multiple sysctl's can share a mutex and who/what shares a mutex > is something to be decided? 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?20010424135845.A10320>