Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 01:11:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, Brent Casavant <b.j.casavant@ieee.org>, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: thread scheduling at mutex unlock Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805170102090.7835@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20080517015023.GM32532@elvis.mu.org> References: <482B0297.2050300@icyb.net.ua> <482BBA77.8000704@freebsd.org> <482BF5EA.5010806@icyb.net.ua> <20080516201555.GL32532@elvis.mu.org> <alpine.BSF.1.10.0805161522070.80796@pkunk.americas.sgi.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0805161724360.5088@sea.ntplx.net> <20080517015023.GM32532@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 May 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> [080516 14:55] wrote: >> >> I think to be fair, the contested mutex case should try >> to handoff the mutex, in lieu of any priority protocol >> that is in place for the threads or mutex. And actually, >> I think in order to properly implement priority mutexes, >> there must be a handoff. >> > > Is this what you are saying? Because it is what I believe. Yes, I think so. It doesn't seem very fair to give one thread the ability to consistently acquire the mutex when another thread has been waiting for it. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0805170102090.7835>