From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 4 16:55:38 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AC616A420 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:55:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.155]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466F013C45D for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 16:55:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so4380612fgg.35 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:55:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=8avo0QwecX4UD9dsEyNxRdRFEVNdmxs6z3+7e3Si5HY=; b=qesOwwD+Y5WUxag0ypQAFA/X2n3RNgT113u2YaaFChVbykw9jv4B0Xp1nKESrYif4AuhPUm9Ceod2ZfOtH8ImvIRqjHgKrWE5ogNI8mC/YUSDkqHrhjb5li/hZinXuLjZ7PlVnfg6xh7mU90yeJ8NFgasrsg0Hh7Esce0F2+u3M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=jBlArumWXeJUhJYDiXSqUwcy1ppJwbsB+LO5gAEV8GsaLvJsJjpmnVnarcahGg4p5yD4dm+YO1ff63ffysZEJFFtr5+ZkpiKbEN4lW7uSfA8h/bWk5YihSoww8IuFundDbLk4gVtDFwgPU+FYs/bH1cDYCN0BXZYK52RQSV+aJI= Received: by 10.86.80.5 with SMTP id d5mr16951595fgb.20.1199465736943; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:55:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.28.19 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:55:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10801040855o29088986w99e2caacff5082bb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:55:36 +0100 From: "Attilio Rao" Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: <5077.1199443244@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3bbf2fe10801030748u28fe346byd051cecfa55cf636@mail.gmail.com> <5077.1199443244@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Google-Sender-Auth: cfc34c94c63db1d5 Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , Andre Oppermann , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New "timeout" api, to replace callout X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:55:38 -0000 2008/1/4, Poul-Henning Kamp : > In message <3bbf2fe10801030748u28fe346byd051cecfa55cf636@mail.gmail.com>, "Atti > lio Rao" writes: > >2008/1/3, Poul-Henning Kamp : > > >> What I'm proposing is that your thread will sleep on a plain, but > >> unrelated mutex (internal to the timeout code) until the function > >> comes back. > >> > >> Based on your description above, you won't be able to tell the > >> any difference between this and what you wish for. > > > >This will be hardly feasible. > >Internal callout subsystem locks probabilly need to be spinlocks in > >order to avoid lock mismatches against sleepable locks. > > callouts will not be allowed to sleep, they never should have been > able to. I meant 'blocking' locks. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein