Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:14:32 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Kip Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 100089 for review Message-ID: <20060627001336.T79454@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200606261759.41541.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200606262054.k5QKsDq7022302@repoman.freebsd.org> <200606261759.41541.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 26 June 2006 16:54, Kip Macy wrote: >> http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=100089 >> >> Change 100089 by kmacy@kmacy_storage:sun4v_work_sleepq on 2006/06/26 > 20:53:51 >> >> add profiling for rwlocks >> not convinced of correctness as there don't appear to be any contended > rwlocks on my workloads > > Few things use them currently. I have a patch to make the name cache use > them if you want it. You may already have seen this, but I have a UNIX domain socket re-locking in //depot/user/rwatson/proto/src/sys/kern/uipc_usrreq.c that uses rwlocks and finer-grained mutexes, among other things. Ideally this can generate some contention (although perhaps not too much). Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060627001336.T79454>