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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 =3D?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=3DF8rgrav?=3D) 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 cl= ass=20 > > of bugs existed on SMP, turned on ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES, and found those bug= s. > > QED. >=20 > 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 --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAZ17IWry0BWjoQKURAvNaAKDTAGtgY9SRgT9yYvJntahzgbqbhQCfc/aa UNfCd5x0tJ2riK6UDrdtl74= =BLcT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wRRV7LY7NUeQGEoC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040328232456.GA47640>