Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:54:12 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> 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: <20080319235358.Y910@desktop> In-Reply-To: <20080320094335.R25104@fledge.watson.org> 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> <20080320094335.R25104@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Robert Watson wrote: > > 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? You are right. John did it at the same time. Good on em. > > 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?20080319235358.Y910>