atom feed65 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-smpRe: SMP meeting summary
FromSent OnAttachments
Jason EvansJun 24, 2000 11:56 pm 
Daniel EischenJun 25, 2000 6:58 am 
Terry LambertJun 25, 2000 10:12 am 
Terry LambertJun 25, 2000 10:36 am 
Julian ElischerJun 25, 2000 10:41 am 
Poul-Henning KampJun 25, 2000 11:07 am 
Nate WilliamsJun 25, 2000 9:41 pm 
Frank MayharJun 25, 2000 11:27 pm 
Frank MayharJun 25, 2000 11:31 pm 
Luoqi ChenJun 26, 2000 9:46 am 
Arun SharmaJun 26, 2000 9:47 am 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 11:06 am 
Matthew DillonJun 26, 2000 12:26 pm 
Matthew DillonJun 26, 2000 12:48 pm 
John SconiersJun 26, 2000 12:56 pm 
Matthew DillonJun 26, 2000 1:07 pm 
Luoqi ChenJun 26, 2000 1:13 pm 
Doug RabsonJun 26, 2000 1:26 pm 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 2:56 pm 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 3:14 pm 
Daniel EischenJun 26, 2000 4:59 pm 
Luoqi ChenJun 26, 2000 7:14 pm 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 7:55 pm 
Joe EykholtJun 26, 2000 8:09 pm 
Greg LeheyJun 27, 2000 8:00 pm 
Jason EvansJun 27, 2000 8:25 pm 
Daniel EischenJun 27, 2000 8:26 pm 
Greg LeheyJun 27, 2000 9:59 pm 
Greg LeheyJun 27, 2000 10:11 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:15 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:18 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:37 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:51 pm 
Arun SharmaJun 28, 2000 9:43 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 2, 2000 7:15 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 3:23 am 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 3:30 am 
Jeroen C. van GelderenJul 3, 2000 7:55 am 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 8:28 am 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 8:47 am 
Frank MayharJul 3, 2000 8:49 am 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 4:08 pm 
David ScheidtJul 3, 2000 4:35 pm 
Joe EykholtJul 3, 2000 4:47 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 4:52 pm 
Joe EykholtJul 3, 2000 4:58 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 5:26 pm 
Joe EykholtJul 3, 2000 5:41 pm 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 7:17 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 7:25 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 7:35 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 7:39 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 7:41 pm 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 8:40 pm 
Alfred PerlsteinJul 3, 2000 10:08 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 10:37 pm 
Peter WemmJul 4, 2000 2:43 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 4, 2000 3:58 pm 
Peter WemmJul 4, 2000 4:06 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 3:38 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 4:00 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 4:06 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 4:10 pm 
Alfred PerlsteinJul 5, 2000 4:29 pm 
Terry LambertJul 6, 2000 4:50 pm 
Subject:Re: SMP meeting summary
From:Daniel Eischen (eisc@vigrid.com)
Date:Jul 3, 2000 7:35:52 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-smp

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Joe Eykholt wrote:

Greg Lehey wrote:

There's nothing to say that wake_one is more complex. wake_one takes the first process on the mutex's sleep list and wakes it. wake_all (or whatever) would make a loop out of that wake function and wake all the processes on the list. All would then be scheduled, try to take the mutex, and all except one would fail and be put back on the sleep list. Does this make sense?

With adaptive mutexes, the threads which are woken will either run one serially on one CPU, or some run at the same time on multiple CPUs. In that case, one gets the lock right away, and the rest SPIN on it (as long as the new owner doesn't get suspended on something else). They don't necessarily go back to sleep on that same lock.

Thanks, I forgot about this. Even if you wake multiple threads, they will not be put back to sleep until the owner of the mutex is no longer running.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message