On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:24:36PM -0400, David Collier-Brown wrote: > David Collier-Brown wrote: > > > I haven't looked at the code, but if it uses F_SETLKW > > you might want to do a trylock first, implemented via > > F_GETLK or F_SETLK, as this would allow subsequent > > processes to continue, knowing that someone's fixing > > the tdb, and that they can access it later using the > > normal locking regime. > > A disclaimer: that isn't the way to do case > 3, it's the way to NOT do case three and be > able to execute in bounded time, instead. > > I reccomend it over case 3 **rather strongly**, > as 3 goes nonlinear, and can be proved to > fail (I just drew the dfa and it was evil!!!) > > The stock approach is also nonlinear, with a > higher overhead, so I guess it's doubly evil. > That other OSs don't bottleneck on it says > good things about their kernel programmers.
Errrr. I don't understand this email. What "case 3" are you talking about here ? Jeremy.
