Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:46:25 -0500 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: _THREAD_SAFE in libc Message-ID: <20001006094625.A68725@hamlet.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <20001005162255.T27736@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:22:56PM -0700 References: <20001005181751.A68499@hamlet.nectar.com> <20001005162255.T27736@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 04:22:56PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Jacques A. Vidrine <n@nectar.com> [001005 16:18] wrote: > > Is it ok to use pthread_rwlock* and other such primitives in code in > > src/lib/libc (when _THREAD_SAFE is defined, of course)? > > It sure looks like it. > > cd /usr/src/lib/libc/ ; grep pthread */* I didn't see all those pthread_mutex*s because I was looking for pthread_rwlock*s :-) Which leads me to wonder if I _want_ pthread_rwlock. The overhead might outweigh the benefits of finer-grained locking. Besides, there doesn't seem to be a good way of promoting a lock from read->write. -- Jacques Vidrine / n@nectar.com / jvidrine@verio.net / nectar@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001006094625.A68725>