Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Scott Long wrote:
for a bit if the current lock owner is running on another CPU?
Do we currently do that?
(*) No, I am not referring to spin mutexes.
Adaptive mutexes are enabled by default and have been for at least a
year.
Ahh, then that's wh
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Scott Long wrote:
> > for a bit if the current lock owner is running on another CPU?
> > Do we currently do that?
> >
> > (*) No, I am not referring to spin mutexes.
> >
>
> Adaptive mutexes are enabled by default and have been for at least a
> year.
Ahh, then that's what they
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday 01 January 2006 02:21 am, prime wrote:
Hi hackers,
I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
give the lock to the first thread waiti
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 01 January 2006 02:21 am, prime wrote:
> > Hi hackers,
> >I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
> >When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
> > give the lock to the first thread waiting on the
On Sunday 01 January 2006 02:21 am, prime wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
>When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
> give the lock to the first thread waiting on the turnstile.And a
> thread gets the mutex after he r
Hi hackers,
I have an idea about remove the kernel option MUTEX_WAKE_ALL.
When we unlock the mutex(in _mtx_unlock_sleep),we can directly
give the lock to the first thread waiting on the turnstile.And a
thread gets the mutex after he returned from turnstile_wait so he
can simply jump out the _
6 matches
Mail list logo
