Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:28:56 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, Stephan Uphoff <ups@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 locking.9 rmlock.9 src/sys/conf files src/sys/kern kern_rmlock.c subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c src/sys/sys _rmlock.h lock.h pcpu.h rmlock.h smp.h Message-ID: <20071126012856.GZ71382@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <4749B971.3000703@elischer.org> References: <200711081447.lA8EltXO052057@repoman.freebsd.org> <47492064.7080108@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711251207590.8538@sea.ntplx.net> <4749B971.3000703@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [071125 10:05] wrote: > > not sure why sx-locks exist at all, as they seem to be a variant of sleep. > I think it's just a convenience function set to allow one to implement > a sleep-derived synchronisation. You are correct, sx locks are a faster replacement for hand rolled msleep locks. They're not only easier to read, but the underlying implementation is faster. -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071126012856.GZ71382>