Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:24:56 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is MTX_CONTESTED evil? Message-ID: <20040328232456.GA47640@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpisgpuqjq.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200403261413.i2QEDKHw001781@green.homeunix.org> <xzpisgpuqjq.fsf@dwp.des.no>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:03:37PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) wrote: > > > Making ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES default will not catch more bugs, it will just > > > piss off users. > > What in the world you are talking about? I didn't know that a large class > > of bugs existed on SMP, turned on ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES, and found those bugs. > > QED. > > ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES currently makes the system unusable. If we turn it > on by default, people will simply stop using FreeBSD (or at least stop > upgrading). This is -CURRENT, remember..we can't be shy about making changes during development that will improve FreeBSD in the long term. If it's really that bad then there might be some ground work to do before it's turned on. However, my experience with ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES on two heavily loaded 4-way SMP package building machines for the past few days has not yet exposed any problems. Kris [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAZ17IWry0BWjoQKURAvNaAKDTAGtgY9SRgT9yYvJntahzgbqbhQCfc/aa UNfCd5x0tJ2riK6UDrdtl74= =BLcT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040328232456.GA47640>