[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: nptl 0.30
- From: "dada1" <dada1 cosmosbay com>
- To: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper redhat com>,"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov web de>
- Cc: "NPTlibrarymailinglist" <phil-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: nptl 0.30
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:54:34 +0100
I beg to differ Ulrich .
May be Alexander was refering to the known futex_wake() with locked mutex
symdrom :
File sysdeps/pthread/pthread_cond_wait.c, line 61
lll_futex_wake (futex, INT_MAX);
/* We are done. */
lll_mutex_unlock (cbuffer->cond->__data.__lock);
That means that the awaken thread(s) will hit the locked mutex.
Just invert those lines to :
lll_mutex_unlock (cbuffer->cond->__data.__lock); /* much better to call
futex_wake() with the mutex unlocked */
lll_futex_wake (futex, INT_MAX);
Thanks.
Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper redhat com>
To: "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov web de>
Cc: "NPTlibrarymailinglist" <phil-list redhat com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: nptl 0.30
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> > It's still way too strict and signaling is way too "paralyzed"
>
> That's complete BS.
>
> - --
> - --------------. ,-. 444 Castro Street
> Ulrich Drepper \ ,-----------------' \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
> Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE+dwC/2ijCOnn/RHQRAg8dAKCI1TofcEAYROw8aQ2i3/0zJ2LmaQCggc4Y
> 3dFqzLBfRvt1IpXI7O/6594=
> =fjSR
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> --
> Phil-list mailing list
> Phil-list redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phil-list
>
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]