Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I don't think the semaphore buys you anything. Additionally, it suffers > from being subject to priority inversions, so I generally try to steer > clear of semaphores unless I really do have a situation where the > problem is expressed as a resource counting problem. (And even then, > direct access to the resources with a lock and cv seems to work better > for me at least.)
Maybe I phrased it wrong: I was afraid I *had* to use a semaphore (as I have to do for Linux), although I'd prefer a mutex. Everything is fine now. > You can certainly sleep while holding an ordinary priority mutex. It > just might do bad things for performance, and you have to worry about > possible recursive scenarios. Which performance impacts do you think of now - the lack of concurrency while paging in, or something else? The sequentialized message queue access is probably not a bottleneck, as the application needs to synchronize the access to the socket anyway. Joachim -- Joachim Worringen, Software Architect, Dolphin Interconnect Solutions phone ++49/(0)228/324 08 17 - http://www.dolphinics.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
