Re: spin lock
- From: Krishna Myneni <krishnamyneni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:30:05 -0500
Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
Krishna Myneni wrote:
...
The only concern I have is to avoid the situation where the signal
handler never
gets the lock.
That's called a bug, dear ;-) We all like to avoid those.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
It would certainly be poor design, at the least. But I should state the concern
more accurately. I want to ensure that the handler obtains a lock during at
least x% of its attempts, where in my application, x is around 50. The mutual
exclusion mechanism must guarantee that this will be the case.
Cheers,
Krishna
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: spin lock
- From: Elizabeth D Rather
- Re: spin lock
- References:
- Re: spin lock
- From: Elizabeth D Rather
- Re: spin lock
- From: Marcel Hendrix
- Re: spin lock
- From: Krishna Myneni
- Re: spin lock
- From: Elizabeth D Rather
- Re: spin lock
- Prev by Date: Re: spin lock
- Next by Date: Re: spin lock
- Previous by thread: Re: spin lock
- Next by thread: Re: spin lock
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|