Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:45:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting rid of the static msleep priority boost Message-ID: <20080320094335.R25104@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20080319162928.V910@desktop> References: <20080307020626.G920@desktop> <20080318235125.G910@desktop> <20080319172344.GX67856@elvis.mu.org> <200803191526.56761.jhb@freebsd.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0803192204280.6239@sea.ntplx.net> <20080319162928.V910@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote: >> Perhaps there are no performance differences, but the cv/mutex primitives >> are a nice clean interface that most everyone understands. If you are >> going to write a professional OS from the ground up, I doubt you are going >> to have anything as convoluted as msleep() as part of your kernel API/ABI. > > One real obstacle to converting all locations to cv_* is the lack of support > for anything other than mtx def mutexes in the cv api. It also just doesn't > seem like a good use of developer resources regardless of how you feel about > msleep. I thought condvar was converted in 7.x to accepting a struct lock for precisely this reason? I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that it can't be used with spin mutexes, but thought, as a result, that we could now use it with other lock types, such as sx locks? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080320094335.R25104>