Re: locking & iovecs

From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 09/24/04

  • Next message: Pekka Savola: "Re: (KAME-snap 8792) Re: Weird memory exhaustion with FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE" 
    Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:30:42 -0700
To: Waldemar Kornewald <Waldemar.Kornewald@web.de>

    On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:03:03AM +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
    > Brooks Davis wrote:
    > >>>You can implement mutexes using semaphores, but semaphores tend to be a
    > >>>more expensive since they are more expressive them mutexes.
    > >>
    > >>Using a benaphore instead would improve speed significantly and as you
    > >>only use macros we can easily replace those with our benaphore code, is
    > >>that really so simple? Sorry, I cannot believe that. :)
    > >
    > >Once GIANT is really gone, it may be nearly that easy. We're a ways
    > >from that though.
    >
    > So, the code is not fully thread-safe yet (we want to drop GIANT)? Then,
    > I misunderstood something. Will 5.3 be freed of GIANT?

    I believe IPv4 is pretty close other then NIC drivers, but IPv6 is
    largely not done yet. GIANT will definatly not be gone in 5.3.

    -- Brooks 

    -- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4

  • Next message: Pekka Savola: "Re: (KAME-snap 8792) Re: Weird memory exhaustion with FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE"

    Relevant Pages