Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 18:29:07 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: smp@freebsd.org, tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Subject: Re: socket buffers and condition variables Message-ID: <XFMail.20020528182907.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <0GWU003BXDPGNP@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28-May-2002 Jeffrey Hsu wrote: > > well, that won't be a valid assumption for bug so long anyways as > > cv's wont' have their own queue forever but will probably share their > > queue's with tsleep in the future. It's an implementation detail. > > John is right. This is the way Solaris implements condition variables, > for example. > > > I don't care if you use cv's instead of sleep/wakeup since cv's are > > often used with mutexes > > I do. I think we should stick w/ sleep/wakeup unless there's a good reason > to change the code. There are places where condition variables are the > better choice, by design and not by implementation detail, but this isn't one > of them. Well, with wakeup_one() our sleep/wakeup really are just duplicating the functionality of cv's. At some point we should deprecate one in favor of the other but we can worry about that later on I think. > > reduced contention isn't really a valid reason to use them. > > Since this task is > A. questionable > B. not needed to lock up the networking stack > can we remove it from the SMP todo roadmap? We can always do it later > if it does turn out to be a good idea. Yes, I would put it off until later on for now. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020528182907.jhb>