From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 14 19:10:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F8416A4CE; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:10:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E814543D31; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:10:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id DFBBC5C8B2; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:10:02 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Robert Watson Message-ID: <20040714191002.GE95729@elvis.mu.org> References: <20040714184445.GC95729@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_event.c src/sys/sys eventvar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:10:03 -0000 * Robert Watson [040714 11:56] wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > Do we have this on the plate? Or are you stalling my work based simply > > on wishful thinking? :) > > There are two outstanding patch sets that add locking to kqueue: > > - Brian Feldman's "kqgiant" changes, which I'm in the process of updating > in Perforce and adapting for your recent additions of fs kqueue events. > > - John-Mark Gurney's "data locking kqueue" changes, which he's currently > working on extracting from his employer. > > In order for network stack locking without Giant to be real for 5.3, > kqueue locking must be completed. The pgsigio do represent a serious > obstacle to getting that locking done, both by virtue of adding an > immediate coding obstacle to adapt around, but also by introducing an > architectural construct that will be difficult to deal with cleanly. My > goal is for us to have basic locking for kqueues in the sys tree in CVS > within two weeks, using one or another of the two sets of changes above. Ok, I'll back it out. In the future I would appreciate a simple "we actually have code in progress to do this" rather than what I thought was wishful thinking. I know your brain is full right now, but is there any way you see this actually working? I know how to avoid the recursion, but, buh.. I think sigio needs an overhaul. I'll see if that works, for now I'll just #if 0 the ioctl code to enable it. -- - Alfred Perlstein - Research Engineering Development Inc. - email: bright@mu.org cell: 408-480-4684