On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:35:02PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> i originally came at this from the other side, where i wanted to run
> kqueue_enqueue and _dequeue without the KERNEL_LOCK, but that implied
> making kqueue_scan use the mutex too, which allowed the syscall to
> become less locked.
>
On 01/05/19(Wed) 16:35, David Gwynne wrote:
> i originally came at this from the other side, where i wanted to run
> kqueue_enqueue and _dequeue without the KERNEL_LOCK, but that implied
> making kqueue_scan use the mutex too, which allowed the syscall to
> become less locked.
>
> it assumes that
i originally came at this from the other side, where i wanted to run
kqueue_enqueue and _dequeue without the KERNEL_LOCK, but that implied
making kqueue_scan use the mutex too, which allowed the syscall to
become less locked.
it assumes that the existing locking in kqueue_scan is in the right
