Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:38:44 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r254380 - in head/sys: kern sys Message-ID: <CAF-QHFXAJvUANiMt3MpOM1WZoqHQcMuGesBR3LL6benqrYRW5w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <520D49EB.9060308@freebsd.org> References: <201308152019.r7FKJI0H095440@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF-QHFXXxQC69djweY7mK1tjbTSNxTPh1=-FxUeyz1nr_0WdHQ@mail.gmail.com> <520D3AD8.4090207@freebsd.org> <CAF-QHFXs11NqBMDWaHmUb%2B42z-MXh6yR3=1q92YoYNio1K3B0Q@mail.gmail.com> <520D49EB.9060308@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> We have a single-writer / multiple-readers lock on *any particular byte* > of a vnode. The rangelock code is what keeps track of this, and the > locking contention I was reducing was in the rangelock bookkeeping. So, for example, if multiple processes or multiple threads read or write a file somewhat unintelligently (a small file, operations on the whole file, like in blogbench), they will effectively content for the byte 0, right?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF-QHFXAJvUANiMt3MpOM1WZoqHQcMuGesBR3LL6benqrYRW5w>