Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:18:01 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_thread.c Message-ID: <423CCF49.4060106@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <423C418D.4080104@samsco.org> References: <23463.1111232399@critter.freebsd.dk> <423C418D.4080104@samsco.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Scott Long wrote: > Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <423C0A0F.6090409@freebsd.org>, David Xu writes: >> >>> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> >>> >>>> phk 2005-03-19 08:22:13 UTC >>>> >>>> FreeBSD src repository >>>> >>>> Sleeping is not allowed in uma->fini >>>> >>> >>> I have not tested if this change will hurt libpthread performance, >>> but it is obvious that benifit of uma cache will be reduced by >>> this change. >> >> >> >> I am aware of that and I don't like it either. >> >> The problem is that the uma_mutex is held over the uma->fini() call >> and I'm surprised that we set so tight constraints on these functions >> but I did not manage to corner the UMA crew and talk to them about it >> yesterday evening. >> >> One obvious solution is to taskq the release of the unit number. >> > > Since unit number release isn't a time-critical operation (right?), it > sounds like a perfect candidate for a taskqueue. > > Scott > > Thread creation should be fast. I like the unit allocator because it can save duplicated code, but if things become complex, we should restore orignal code which is straight forward. David Xuhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?423CCF49.4060106>