Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:26:38 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r252209 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys Message-ID: <51CA97AE.4090306@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201306251844.r5PIiFDZ009708@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201306251844.r5PIiFDZ009708@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25.06.2013 20:44, John Baldwin wrote: > Author: jhb > Date: Tue Jun 25 18:44:15 2013 > New Revision: 252209 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/252209 > > Log: > Several improvements to rmlock(9). Many of these are based on patches > provided by Isilon. > - Add an rm_assert() supporting various lock assertions similar to other > locking primitives. Because rmlocks track readers the assertions are > always fully accurate unlike rw_assert() and sx_assert(). > - Flesh out the lock class methods for rmlocks to support sleeping via > condvars and rm_sleep() (but only while holding write locks), rmlock > details in 'show lock' in DDB, and the lc_owner method used by > dtrace. > - Add an internal destroyed cookie so that API functions can assert > that an rmlock is not destroyed. > - Make use of rm_assert() to add various assertions to the API (e.g. > to assert locks are held when an unlock routine is called). > - Give RM_SLEEPABLE locks their own lock class and always use the > rmlock's own lock_object with WITNESS. > - Use THREAD_NO_SLEEPING() / THREAD_SLEEPING_OK() to disallow sleeping > while holding a read lock on an rmlock. Thanks! Would it make sense to move struct rm_queue from struct pcpu itself to using DPCPU as a next step? > Submitted by: andre Actually these were only relayed by me and came from Max Laier / Stephan Uphoff. So all fame to them. > Obtained from: EMC/Isilon -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51CA97AE.4090306>