Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:07:19 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Wes =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peters=D4?=?=?iso-8859-1?Q?=40=21=EA?=? <wes@softweyr.com>, bright@hotjobs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: question about re-entrancy. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990105220612.5112X-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199901051946.MAA09199@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[snip] > > The problem with object locks is that it puts > > objects that don't really need to be in a contention > > domain into one in order to satisfy contention in what > > are usually very small critical sections having to do > > with list manipulation of pointers to the object. > > So you're claiming that the 'Big Giant Lock' is the better way? You > can't have it both ways. > > > > Nate The third way (about which Terry did talk) is to have locks around critical sections. Sander There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future - all these are just illusions. 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?Pine.BSF.3.96.990105220612.5112X-100000>