Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 16:03:28 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: Jake Burkholder <jburkhol@home.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMPng: catching signals and mutexes. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009091602100.530-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000909014730.25268A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > There seems to be no way to specify that a signal is to interrupt > > > > a wait on a mutex, I'm wondering if we should make it possible to > > > > do so. > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > I'm not sure I like this at all, shouldn't there be an > > > > mtx_enter with some option to return an error if a signal > > > > arrives? > > > > > > IMHO, yes. Solaris has cv_wait_sig() for just that. > > > > > > > Mutexes are meant to serve a different purpose than tsleep or > > condition variables. > > > > The next thing in line is to add a mutex argument to tsleep, > > which will be atomicly released and re-acquired upon resume. > > So how far are we from removing tsleep in favor of cv_wait()/ > cv_wait_sig() or similar? Let's get rid of tsleep if at all > possible. Removing tsleep would be a large job and is reasonably separate from adding mutexes to replace spls for data protection. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 20 8348 3944 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009091602100.530-100000>