Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)

From: Brian F. Feldman (green_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 04/17/04

  • Next message: John-Mark Gurney: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)" 
    To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:05:59 -0400

    Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
    > <<On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:13:13 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> said:
    >
    > > Contrived. Let's see one. There won't be any -- they will be using
    > > threads, not kqueues, because threads work on more than one system.
    >
    > Except, of course, that the thread library may use kqueue internally.

    Then we don't do that.

    > > In case
    > > you didn't notice, kqueues have been horribly broken for years now
    >
    > For values of ``horribly broken'' apparently equal to ``not understood
    > by green''.

    For values of ``horribly broken'' apparently equal to ``does not respect any
    locking constraints,'' ``does not have semantics which support the idea of a
    non-spl system,'' and ones like that, yeah. 

    -- 
Brian Fundakowski Feldman                           \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
  <> green@FreeBSD.org                               \  The Power to Serve! \
 Opinions expressed are my own.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: John-Mark Gurney: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)"