From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May 15 16:24:54 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C45106564A;
	Sun, 15 May 2011 16:24:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D8A8FC0A;
	Sun, 15 May 2011 16:24:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua
	[212.40.38.100])
	by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id TAA13756;
	Sun, 15 May 2011 19:24:50 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1])
	by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD))
	id 1QLe7e-0000I2-H1; Sun, 15 May 2011 19:24:50 +0300
Message-ID: <4DCFFE52.1090002@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 19:24:50 +0300
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110503 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
References: <4DCD357D.6000109@FreeBSD.org> <4DCFE8FA.6080005@FreeBSD.org>
	<4DCFEE33.5090808@FreeBSD.org>
	<201105151209.13846.max@love2party.net>
In-Reply-To: <201105151209.13846.max@love2party.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>,
	Peter Grehan <grehan@FreeBSD.org>,
	John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, neel@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: proposed smp_rendezvous change
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 16:24:54 -0000

on 15/05/2011 19:09 Max Laier said the following:
> 
> I don't think we ever intended to synchronize the local teardown part, and I 
> believe that is the correct behavior for this API.
> 
> This version is sufficiently close to what I have, so I am resonably sure that 
> it will work for us.  It seems, however, that if we move to check to after 
> picking up the lock anyway, the generation approach has even less impact and I 
> am starting to prefer that solution.
> 
> Andriy, is there any reason why you'd prefer your approach over the generation 
> version?

No reason.  And I even haven't said that I prefer it :-)
I just wanted to show and explain it as apparently there was some
misunderstanding about it.  I think that generation count approach could even
have a little bit better performance while perhaps being a tiny bit less obvious.

-- 
Andriy Gapon