Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 01:10:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, grog@lemis.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Locking on disk slice I/O--yes, no or how? Message-ID: <199801220110.SAA17398@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.980122095543.5155A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> from "Michael Hancock" at Jan 22, 98 10:02:14 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Only if you have an intention collision would you resort to a TSM > > call to resolve the collision. For the most part, it's non-blocking. > > TSM doesn't necessarily mean it's non-blocking. It just means that a > vnode you're about to modify won't suddenly become a mbuf. Intent locking > seems similar in this respect. Maybe I'm being a smartass, but since John > said TSM instead of NBS it leaves it open to speculation a wee bit. > > Things sure are getting interesting in current! I was thinking of Test-and-set/Semaphore/Mutex. You would use non-blocking intention modes, and then block on a T, S, or M if there were a conflicting intention. I guess he could have been talking about "Type Specific Memory", though... but in the context of locking? 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801220110.SAA17398>