6 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-smpRe: sysctl's and mutexes| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Watson | Apr 23, 2001 7:31 pm | |
| John Baldwin | Apr 24, 2001 10:10 am | |
| Robert Watson | Apr 24, 2001 10:25 am | |
| Andrew R. Reiter | Apr 24, 2001 10:46 am | |
| Barney Wolff | Apr 24, 2001 10:58 am | |
| John Baldwin | Apr 24, 2001 11:44 am |
| Subject: | Re: sysctl's and mutexes | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Barney Wolff (bar...@databus.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 24, 2001 10:58:23 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-smp | |
Pardon an outsider's question, but what exactly are these mutex's supposed to protect? Would a reader of a sysctl value have to acquire a read lock in order to read a non-atomic value?
Is the rate at which these values are set and/or read so high as to justify more than a single mutex for the lot? Are there any operations that take long enough that anything other than a spinlock is justified?
Sorry if these are dumb questions - I'm just a KISS sort of guy.
Barney Wolff
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:47:17PM -0400, Andrew R. Reiter wrote:
As in being able to say that for (and this might be a bad example) kern.timecounter.* mibs, could all share a mutex which is really "bound" to kern.timecounter in genera. Or do you mean just more generically the idea that multiple sysctl's can share a mutex and who/what shares a mutex is something to be decided?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message