Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >If so, then your task is the following:
> >
> >Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
> >whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping on the
> >semaphore are woken, even if we only have released enough resource
Tom Lane wrote:
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwards:
> > Yes but there are still a lot of wakeups to be avoided in the current
> > System V semaphore code. More specifically, not only do we wakeup all
> > the processes waiting on a single semaphore everytime something changes,
> > but we
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >If so, then your task is the following:
> >
> >Make SYSV semaphores less dumb about process wakeups. Currently
> >whenever the semaphore state changes, all processes sleeping on the
> >semaphore are woken, even if we only have released enough resource
