From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov  2 22:49:39 2014
Return-Path: <owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E89E3558;
 Sun,  2 Nov 2014 22:49:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51834EE0;
 Sun,  2 Nov 2014 22:49:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tom.home (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by kib.kiev.ua (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id sA2MnY5X060444
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
 Mon, 3 Nov 2014 00:49:34 +0200 (EET)
 (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 kib.kiev.ua sA2MnY5X060444
Received: (from kostik@localhost)
 by tom.home (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id sA2MnYm5060443;
 Mon, 3 Nov 2014 00:49:34 +0200 (EET)
 (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com
 using -f
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 00:49:34 +0200
From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r273966 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys
Message-ID: <20141102224934.GG53947@kib.kiev.ua>
References: <20141102163728.GX53947@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAJ-FndAeh_i9F98Tq-ZXgX+adq4mOgoadSoYJ6hmvYpBtmkvow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141102165916.GY53947@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAJ-FndAbhBFQ1gD64Wi210zH-0kfxjkkUJRNYHnFnmW+KAhm2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141102174958.GZ53947@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAJ-FndC_3Te6Y7N0+8ZddH8i72cxH+ACHm=EShHp=QDoX4xSow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141102191029.GA53947@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAJ-FndBz25uka6Zz+x_bRykJCUQLCPxJoPHidc5FuTtZ=Kfb9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141102213819.GF53947@kib.kiev.ua>
 <CAJ-FndASC832PTqaVfYqPvFxOdvroxbyT4LaJ8Job6xhiXcE=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndASC832PTqaVfYqPvFxOdvroxbyT4LaJ8Job6xhiXcE=w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no
 autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on tom.home
Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>,
 "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>,
 "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current
 <svn-src-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-src-head>,
 <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
 <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 22:49:40 -0000

On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 11:37:57PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:17:26PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> I think that your initial patch (what is in head now) is a better approach.
> >> I would just make it a lockinit() flag to make it less alien to the KPI.
> >>
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > Can you explain what would the proposed lockinit() flag do ? What should
> > it change comparing with the current code ?
> 
> You now provide LK_NODDLKTREAT on a call basis.
> The lockinit() flag would embed this into the lock attribute and make
> it always real, without the need for the callers to provide
> LK_NODDLKTREAT on a call basis.

Am I reading your proposal right ? Do you mean, that for all vnodes,
I should disable exclusive starvation avoidance at all ? I completely
disagree with this.