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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> 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?home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF-QHFXAJvUANiMt3MpOM1WZoqHQcMuGesBR3LL6benqrYRW5w>