From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 16 20:43:15 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7210816A40F; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:43:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from blake.polstra.com (blake.polstra.com [64.81.189.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111EA13C4A7; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:43:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (strings.polstra.com [64.81.189.67]) by blake.polstra.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0GKhEZd077880; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:43:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.5 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200701161438.52481.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:43:14 -0800 (PST) From: John Polstra To: John Baldwin X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (blake.polstra.com [64.81.189.66]); Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:43:14 -0800 (PST) Cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek , Kip Macy , Suleiman Souhlal , Attilio Rao , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mantaining turnstile aligned to 128 bytes in i386 CPUs X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:43:15 -0000 On 16-Jan-2007 John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 16 January 2007 11:51, Attilio Rao wrote: >> The patch: >> http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/ts-sq.diff > > Looks good. Some minor nits are that in subr_turnstile.c in the comment I > would say "a turnstile is allocated" rather than "a turnstile is got from a > specific UMA zone" as it reads a little bit clearer. Also, I would > say "Allocate a" rather than "Get a" for the two _alloc() functions. Also, > why not just use UMA_ALIGN_CACHE and make UMA_ALIGN_CACHE (128 - 1) on i386 > and amd64 rather than adding a new UMA_ALIGN_SYNC? Also, instead of calling bzero in the _init functions, I think you could pass UMA_ZONE_ZINIT to uma_zcreate. John