Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:33:00 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "John Baldwin" <jhb@freebsd.org>, pho@freebsd.org, kris@freebsd.org, "Robert Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sx locks rewriting - needs testers Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10610271133j27dd5a8eq7fea228c955c93e5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10610181518k68356528i154267c0bd1b1a77@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe10610181518k68356528i154267c0bd1b1a77@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2006/10/19, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: > In my P4 branch: //depot/user/attilio/attilio_smpng/... > you can find a sx locks rewriting using the optimized semantic of > rwlocks; in the end this might result in a valuable performance > improvement. > > Some hints about it: > - new sx locks alredy support inlined s*lock operations and try* operations; > (they have a fully functional support) > - new sx locks doesn't have support for adaptive spinning yet; this is beacause > the code is under revision even for mutex/rwlock. > - we could allow a sharers tracking in debugging mode, at least, in > order to detect > eventual recursion in slock operation > - currently, sx locks mantain the exclusive holder tracking even if this is not > really necessary (we can get rid of it). > > In this moment a strong phase of test is *very* welcome, so please, > for every people having a p4 account, dowload the kernel and try to > put it under stress (at this purpose I cc'ed, in particular, kris@, > pho@ and jhb@ in order to have tests, revisions, etc. etc.) Maybe I did a stupid thing not directly posting diffs (so that all the people interested can nicely check/try): http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/smpng26102006.diff Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10610271133j27dd5a8eq7fea228c955c93e5>