Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:11:38 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Subject: Re: RE: that INVARIANT/ucred freeing stuff. Message-ID: <XFMail.020222201138.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202221109330.74100-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 22-Feb-02 Julian Elischer wrote: > OK here is my suggestion: > > We add extra code under DIAGNOSTIC > the code does: Hang on. The only reason this stuff is under DIAGNOSTIC is because of the performance. If you put it under DIAGNOSTIC, please don't make it all gross and complicated, just leave it simple. If you want to optimize it put it under INVARIANTS. Geez. Secondly, did anyone try pushing down Giant into crfree() for the case where we actually call free() and see if that helped the performacne? Giant thrashing is probably what the big problem was. In almost every case you would be just decrementing the refcount using the same logic used to justify this caching scheme. Oh well, for my testing I'll just stick this all back under INVARIANTS and push down Giant in my branch. Much cleaner and useful to me personally. If no one else wants to test this (td_ucred) code more power to them. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020222201138.jhb>