Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:23:25 +0100 From: Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@SerNet.DE> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: process shared mutexes? Message-ID: <20161121202325.GA32463@sernet.de> In-Reply-To: <20161121164109.GC54029@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20161121133528.GA30947@sernet.de> <20161121135036.GY54029@kib.kiev.ua> <20161121141616.GB30947@sernet.de> <20161121151040.GA54029@kib.kiev.ua> <20161121152542.GA31733@sernet.de> <20161121155823.GB54029@kib.kiev.ua> <20161121161454.GA32128@sernet.de> <20161121164109.GC54029@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 06:41:09PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > So -- all of the above discussion becomes irrelevant if I change tdb > > such that it keeps the mutex area mmappe'd at least once? Then no GC > > will kick in regardless of the sysctl? This would be possible, because > > we use mutexes on so-called CLEAR_IF_FIRST databases only. When the last > > process closes the db, it will be wiped on the next open. > > If the file is mmaped, then yes, the mutex must be not destroyed. If it > is, then there is a bug in the current implementation. Just wanted to say thanks! With a pretty simple change to tdb our tdbtorture runs smoothly on FreeBSD 11! Volker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20161121202325.GA32463>