From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Venkatesh Srinivas Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 11:23:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175934788acef804944fdddd Subject: [9fans] Plan 9 libc locks and semacquire? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 77dea836-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0015175934788acef804944fdddd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, In the paper 'Semaphores in Plan 9' by Sape and Russ Cox, there was this note: "The performance of the semaphore-based lock implementation is sometimes much better and never noticeably worse than the spin locks. We will replace the spin lock implementation in the Plan 9 distribution soon." As far as I can tell, this has not happened; is there any reason why? Are there any objections of the sem*-based locks? Thanks, -- vs --0015175934788acef804944fdddd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

In the paper 'Semaphores in Plan 9' by Sape and Russ Cox= , there was this note:
"The performance of the semaphore-based lock= implementation is sometimes much better and never noticeably worse than th= e spin locks. We will replace the spin lock implementation in the Plan 9 di= stribution soon."

As far as I can tell, this has not happened; is there any reason why? A= re there any objections of the sem*-based locks?

Thanks,
-- vs
--0015175934788acef804944fdddd--