Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:04:01 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Alfred Perlstein" <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: request for review: backport of sx and rwlocks from 7.0 to 6-stable Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10709011804r71dbde02wcb50b4b319476940@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070831071048.GF87451@elvis.mu.org> References: <20070831071048.GF87451@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/8/31, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>: > Hi guys, > > Some work here at work was approved for sharing with community so > I'm posting it here in hope of a review. > > We run some pretty good stress testing on our code, so I think it's > pretty solid. > > My only concern is that I've tried my best to preserve kernel source > API, but not binary compat though a few simple #defines. > > I can make binary compat, in albeit a somewhat confusing manner, but > that will require some rototilling and weird renaming of calls to > the sleepq and turnstile code. In short, I'd rather not, but I will > if you think it's something that should be done. > > There's also a few placeholders for lock profiling which I will > very likely be backporting shortly as well. > > Patch is attached. > > Comments/questions? Hello Alfred, I started looking at the patch and I have 2 things to say: - why you backported the allocating patch with UMA in sleepqueues? it is ortogonhal to this problem and it is not necessary due in this case I think - Instead than using the stub __aligned() for struct thread, you should use what we alredy do for 7.0 as dealing with uma allocation functions and a separate stub for thread0. you can workaround the missing of uma functions with a simple macro. I will try to give a line-by-line revision ASAP. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10709011804r71dbde02wcb50b4b319476940>