Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 19:17:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jon Mini <mini@freebsd.org> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UMA locks Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209081913560.51214-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020909014206.GY7265@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Jon Mini wrote: > Julian Elischer [julian@elischer.org] wrote : > > > The UMA code is so central to all sorts of other modules that > > if you briefly need a lock to manipulate it's per-cpu structures, > > it is possible a spinlock might be a better choice. > > (depending on how long you hold it for.) > > Being able to uma_free while holding a spinlock would be very nice. of course we could always drop schedlock in thread_exit(), or do what we do do, which is call thread_stash() instead of thread_free() when we want to free the spare thread td_spare, but then we are doing EXTRA locking ops... hmm schedlock is being helppd for some quite long periods. It's probably worth looking at it some time.. > > -- > Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> > http://www.freebsd.org/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0209081913560.51214-100000>