Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:16:55 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ofed merge soon Message-ID: <201101301016.55633.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101292143010.1412@desktop> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101271653470.1412@desktop> <201101291032.35544.hselasky@c2i.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1101292143010.1412@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 30 January 2011 08:44:45 Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a comment:
> >
> > +
> > +#define DEFINE_MUTEX(lock) \
> > + mutex_t lock; \
> > + SX_SYSINIT_FLAGS(lock, &(lock).sx, "lnxmtx", SX_NOWITNESS)
> > +
> > +static inline void
> > +linux_mutex_init(mutex_t *m)
> > +{
> > +
> > + memset(&m->sx, 0, sizeof(m->sx));
> > + sx_init_flags(&m->sx, "lnxmtx", SX_NOWITNESS);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define mutex_init linux_mutex_init
> >
> > I see you workaround the fact that Linux does not destroy any mutexes by
> > disabling witness. Do you have any plan to upgrade the Linux 3rd party
> > code to destroy mutexes?
>
> It introduces too many diffs that are difficult to maintain. I don't
> think it's viable. One option would be to tag the memory linux uses so
> that when it's freed we reclaim any locks in it. You could scan the
> witness tables for pointers within the free'd region fairly easily. It
> wouldn't be pretty though.
How about requiring that Linux code, once imported, must destroy it's mutexes?
--HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201101301016.55633.hselasky>