Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:46:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: spinlocks and acquire pseudo-priority Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009280844130.3999-100000@jehovah.technokratis.com> In-Reply-To: <20000927230538.I7553@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > It seems like a possibility, however a spinlock being that contested is > most likely a problem and needs to be fixed. Not necessarily. It may occur in a big resource starvation where many threads just end up in msleep(), or similar, and many others call wakeup(). > It may be a good idea to examine the lock right before panicing to > see if the lock state has changed. Yeah, I agree, but it may still happen.... although you make it lesss likely by doing that. > It may also be a good idea to alternate between a hard spin and a > DELAY loop rather then backoff so much. > > -- > -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] > "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0009280844130.3999-100000>