Kris Kennaway wrote: > Hopefully within a week or two. It might not be that exact patch, I > think John wants to try and do it a bit differently instead of > introducing a new locking primitive just for this. Well why not? :) I am not an expert, but reading jeffr's posts it looks like the idea of sleepable mutexes was taken from Solaris, where it's also not exactly documented. If moving away from sleepable mutexes introduces more than a small single digit percentage drop in performance (1% on multi-gigahertz machines is a lot), why not keep it? If it's dangerous to use, that should be documented in the man page with big bold letters but if it helps, keep it. (Of course I might be completely off the track and sleepable mutexes might be inconsequential for performance here :) )Received on Sun Feb 25 2007 - 08:15:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:06 UTC