Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 19:13:42 +0900 (JST) From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@plexuscom.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: clone()/rfork()/threads (Re: Inferno for FreeBSD) Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961210191105.24807A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199612062111.QAA22343@chai.plexuscom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Bakul Shah wrote: > BTW, you may wish to browse the NBS thread (a different kind of > thread) on comp.os.research. NBS may be something worth using > (instead of mutexs and locks) in the MP version of FreeBSD. Also > read Greenwald and Cheriton's "The Synergy Between Non-blocking > Synchronization and Operating System Structure" (accessible via > http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/Publications.html) This is pretty interesting. Here's a quote from one of Greenwald's postings: "Blocking synchronization commits you to allowing the first person to acquire the lock to finish, and everyone else is blocked. Non-blocking synchronization allows you to reconsider who the "lock-owner" should be at any point during the operation." Regards, Mike Hancock
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SV4.3.95.961210191105.24807A-100000>