From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 20 19:30:17 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9EF16A475; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:30:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5749813C48A; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:27:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 6CD381A4D91; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:27:17 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org> References: <20071019232846.GQ31826@elvis.mu.org> <4719B06F.3000103@FreeBSD.org> <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Kris Kennaway , stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:30:17 -0000 * Robert Watson [071020 10:21] wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >>Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, > >>this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 > >>to FreeBSD-6. > >> > >>Do we want this? > >> > >>I'd like to do it if people want it. > > > >I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x > >version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time > >spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break > >ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told > >me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. > > This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for > 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable > and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related > products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any > remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure > to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the > option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? -- - Alfred Perlstein