Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 20:04:07 -0400 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> To: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fine grained locking at the socket level? Message-ID: <20030623000407.GA2911@technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <87el1lr7ep.wl@jchurch.neville-neil.com.neville-neil.com> References: <87el1lr7ep.wl@jchurch.neville-neil.com.neville-neil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:54PM -0700, George V. Neville-Neil wrote: > Hi, > > It would seem that splnet() and frieds now simply return 0, > which I figure is part of making the code look like it used > to. What I'm wondering is why the Giant lock is still used in > the socket layer? I thought sockets had had fine grained > locking applied to them. Am I confused? I'm looking at the > bits du jour (-CURRENT). > > Thanks, > George The short answer is: we're not done. The long answer is: we're not done. :-) We can't simply unwind Giant just anywhere yet because there is still code in other layers that requires Giant. Cheers, -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@technokratis.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org TECHNOkRATIS Consulting Services * http://www.technokratis.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030623000407.GA2911>