From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Sep 11 19:24:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from magnesium.net (toxic.magnesium.net [207.154.84.15]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03E5E37B423 for ; Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:24:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 72922 invoked by uid 1142); 12 Sep 2000 02:24:31 -0000 Date: 11 Sep 2000 19:24:31 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:24:25 -0700 From: Jason Evans To: Greg Lehey Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Long-term mutex ownership (was Re: Interruptable mutex aquires.) Message-ID: <20000911192425.B31089@blitz.canonware.com> References: <200009111815.MAA21525@berserker.bsdi.com> <20000911114746.G12231@fw.wintelcom.net> <20000912114154.H88615@wantadilla.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000912114154.H88615@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:41:54AM +0930 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:41:54AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote: > I think we need to come to some kind of consensus about how we are > going to structure locking before we go into this much detail. At the > moment we don't even agree whether we can hold on to (blocking) > mutexes for long periods of time. I don't recall the original argument against holding mutexes for long periods. From an abstract point of view, there's nothing wrong with such practice, and in fact it makes sense for many problems. Is there an issue with our implementation? If so, can someone please explain it? Thanks, Jason To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message