[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Cancelling Subversion operations

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2002-09-18 20:41:34 CEST

Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:

> it means adding a couple
> of locks inside the callback, but how expensive is that really?

An uncontested mutex, while not free, can be cheap. The problem is
that it becomes expensive when contested, and it generally gets worse
as the number of threads contesting it increases.

Bill has raised a valid point, a single callback/baton is OK as a
simple async-signal handling mechanism, but as a general cancellation
mechanism it's a poor solution.

I'm not sure I agree with his other comment about some operations not
needing to be cancellable (post-commit processing and downloading a
large file were the examples). A process that ignores SIGTERM, or
just delays too long before handling it, is likely to get SIGKILL.

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 18 20:42:10 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.