From owner-freebsd-arch  Sun Feb 17  0: 0:23 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A3CEF37B404; Sun, 17 Feb 2002 00:00:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8])
          by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
          id <20020217080016.VXYF2951.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>;
          Sun, 17 Feb 2002 08:00:16 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA44708;
	Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:56:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>,
	Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG,
	jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, peter@wemm.org, jake@locore.ca
Subject: Re: gettimeofday() and crhold()/crfree() (was Re: gettimeofday()
In-Reply-To: <200202170712.g1H7Cxb48783@apollo.backplane.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202162354060.39539-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

either way, could you do you timing tests on a NON-INVARIANT
kernel to judge the difference this makes?
In the mean while, John, is it really necessary to have this there?
I can remove it (and the KASSERTS) in a flash if you'll let me...

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:

> :
> :I agree but jhb wants to have it that way... He wants to be able to catch 
> :anyone accessing the ucred of a thread that is in user space. I
> :personally think we should just remove the code.
> 
>     It makes it rather difficult to work on the Giant pushdown code because
>     it's going to catch a majority of process blockages, making it difficult
>     for us to guage the effect of our Giant pushdown work and also making
>     it difficult to track down what Giant locks are still being obtained. 
>     If John (John?) is going to insist on leaving that code in, then I will
>     have to commit the Giant-less crfree() code pretty much now to get
>     around the deficiency.
> 
>     Now, it may wind up being a good idea to have giant-less crfree() code
>     anyway, since crfree() is called from the VM system (and NFS, and the
>     file descriptor code, and the VFS subsystem, and a few other places
>     deep in the code).  It will be rather difficult to get Giant pushed
>     down into those subsystems without fixing crfree() anyway, but the work
>     isn't likely to progress that far for a few weeks or a month or two
>     depending.
> 
> 						-Matt
> 
> 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message