Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 22:40:47 +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.3.96.990105223702.5112Y-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <199901052008.NAA09332@mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > [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. > > That *is* what an 'object lock' in RTEMS is. > An "object lock" is a lock associated with some object. In order to access the object, you acquire the lock. A "critical section" lock is a lock associated with a certain critical section of code. In order to enter that specific section of code, you acquire the lock. As far as I can see they aren't the same, even though they can be combined and/or mixed. > > Nate > 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.3.96.990105223702.5112Y-100000>