Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:55:36 +0100 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New "timeout" api, to replace callout Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10801040855o29088986w99e2caacff5082bb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5077.1199443244@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <3bbf2fe10801030748u28fe346byd051cecfa55cf636@mail.gmail.com> <5077.1199443244@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/1/4, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: > In message <3bbf2fe10801030748u28fe346byd051cecfa55cf636@mail.gmail.com>, "Atti > lio Rao" writes: > >2008/1/3, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: > > >> What I'm proposing is that your thread will sleep on a plain, but > >> unrelated mutex (internal to the timeout code) until the function > >> comes back. > >> > >> Based on your description above, you won't be able to tell the > >> any difference between this and what you wish for. > > > >This will be hardly feasible. > >Internal callout subsystem locks probabilly need to be spinlocks in > >order to avoid lock mismatches against sleepable locks. > > callouts will not be allowed to sleep, they never should have been > able to. I meant 'blocking' locks. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10801040855o29088986w99e2caacff5082bb>