From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 22 20:41:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6EC3A16A4CE; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.macomnet.ru (relay.macomnet.ru [195.128.64.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8EADF43D45; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:41:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from maxim@macomnet.ru)
Received: from mp3 (uvwb7r80@mp3files.int.ru [195.128.64.20])
	by relay.macomnet.ru (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2N4ewOB9359456;
	Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:40:58 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:40:58 +0300 (MSK)
From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru>
To: John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <200403221906.47238.john@baldwin.cx>
Message-ID: <20040323073742.C62061@mp3files.int.ru>
References: <200403160519.i2G5J0V6023193@urban>
	<200403220657.i2M6vCrS097750@shojaku.t.axe-inc.co.jp>
	<200403221906.47238.john@baldwin.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: arch@freebsd.org
cc: David Schultz <das@freebsd.org>
cc: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@tanimura.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: Is MTX_CONTESTED evil?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 04:41:11 -0000

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, 19:06-0500, John Baldwin wrote:

[...]
> > By the way, one thing to keep in mind is that Solaris has working
> > adaptive mutexes.  For adaptive mutexes, the waiting case is
> > almost never supposed to happen, so it's more reasonable for them
> > to wake all waiters.  However, AFAIK, FreeBSD's adaptive mutex
> > support is incomplete or broken at this point, so you may run into
> > a thundering herd problem if you wake all waiters.
>
> Adaptive mutexes work just fine, but they aren't on by default.  In FreeBSD,
> adaptive mutexes spin so long as the owner is still executing on another CPU.

With 'options ADATIVE_MUTEXES' our SMP testbox crashes very reliable.
If you are interested in a traceback and/or crashdump let me know.

-- 
Maxim Konovalov