Re: await & asleep
From: M. Warner Losh (imp_at_bsdimp.com)
Date: 07/28/05
- Previous message: Sergey Uvarov: "file locking"
- In reply to: Scott Long: "Re: await & asleep"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 22:10:09 -0600 (MDT) To: scottl@samsco.org
In message: <42E7BD9F.6060401@samsco.org>
Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> writes:
: > and the priority argument of tsleep() doesn't have any meaning
: > any longer, right?
: >
:
: I thought it did, but John can give the definitive answer.
Priority is still useful. It is the same priority that msleep uses.
tsleep is completely equivalent to msleep with a null mtx parameter.
The priority field is indeed used:
/*
* Adjust this thread's priority.
*/
mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock);
sched_prio(td, priority & PRIMASK);
mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock);
msleep is a different primitive that cv_wait and friends. cv_wait
enforces good mutex practices and generally should be used...
Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Sergey Uvarov: "file locking"
- In reply to: Scott Long: "Re: await & asleep"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
