[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Fileassoc locking
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 06:22:36PM -0500, Elad Efrat wrote:
> It is unclear to me why we need to hold a mutex (rather than merely a
> reference) when traversing a list that will not change until reference
> count has dropped. What am I missing? (See other mail about this as
If the reference count manipulation is atomic, you do not, strictly
speaking, need the locks (if you are clever). However, that probably
costs about as much as using a mutex, because the locked bus accesses
are the expensive part of either.
If the reference count manipulation is not atomic, you need the locks.
Main Index |
Thread Index |