Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 01:57:00 -0500 From: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> To: attilio@FreeBSD.org Cc: alc@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Bruce Evans <bde@optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: sched_lock && thread_lock() Message-ID: <465688BC.90308@cs.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <465612C4.3040400@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070520155103.K632@10.0.0.1> <20070521113648.F86217@besplex.bde.org> <20070520213132.K632@10.0.0.1> <4651CAB8.8070007@FreeBSD.org> <4651CE2F.8080908@FreeBSD.org> <20070521022847.D679@10.0.0.1> <20070521195811.G56785@delplex.bde.org> <4651FCB5.7070604@FreeBSD.org> <20070521225032.C57233@delplex.bde.org> <20070522162819.N5249@besplex.bde.org> <20070522201336.C87981@besplex.bde.org> <46533CAD.8030104@FreeBSD.org> <4655C67A.9060000@FreeBSD.org> <46558E43.8040608@cs.rice.edu> <465612C4.3040400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Attilio Rao wrote: > > Ok, I've updated the patch following your suggestion. > I just left out that vmmeter fields which needs to be incremented not > by one but by another value (since PCPU_LAZY_INC() just increments by 1). > > Do you think it is more appropriate to expand the PCPU_LAZY_*() > interface and let it cover increments not by 1 too? > Yes, but let's do that in a later patch, not this one. Alan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465688BC.90308>