Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:04:58 -0400 From: Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c Message-ID: <20010403140457.B2952@electricjellyfish.net> In-Reply-To: <200104030315.f333FCX69312@freefall.freebsd.org>; from alfred@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 08:15:12PM -0700 References: <200104030315.f333FCX69312@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 08:15:12PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > alfred 2001/04/02 20:15:12 PDT > > Modified files: > sys/sys mbuf.h > sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c > Log: > Use only one mutex for the entire mbuf subsystem. I can see how this makes some things cheaper by allowing you to only lock a single mutex instead of several, but doesn't it also limit you to only a single thread using the mbuf subsystem at a time? Since mbufs are used in a fairly large number of places throught the system, wouldn't that be bad? I'm sure this has been thought through, I'm just trying to understand why this will be better in the long run. Isn't the goal to have fine grained locking, rather than single locks limiting access to subsystems? -- garrett rooney Unix was not designed to stop you from rooneg@electricjellyfish.net doing stupid things, because that would http://electricjellyfish.net/ stop you from doing clever things. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010403140457.B2952>