Do you really "sleep" when blocked on a mutex?

Hello,

=20

When a thread cannot get a mutex (default mutex) and needs to be
blocked, is it really put to sleep? From looking at the code it appears
that it is inhibited (TD_SET_LOCK) but isn't really put to sleep.

=20

1.	Why isn't it put to sleep - why can't it be treated the same?
2.	The eventual question I am trying to answer is the difference
between setrunnable() and setrunqueue() - this one simply finds a slot
in the ksegrp and a runq to add the KSE/td. But setrunnable() also
checks to see if the process is in memory (PS_INMEM) before calling
sched_wakeup which eventually calls setrunqueue()? Why doesn't
setrunqueue have to worry about the possibility that the process may
have been swapped out while it was waiting to become runnable?

=20

Thanks

Ravi

=20

_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"