From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Sep 8 18:42: 8 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E060B37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A650643E65 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:42:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from baka@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1921) id 6E416AE1C1; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:42:06 -0700 From: Jon Mini To: Julian Elischer Cc: Jeff Roberson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UMA locks Message-ID: <20020909014206.GY7265@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020822200207.S57142-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Julian Elischer [julian@elischer.org] wrote : > The UMA code is so central to all sorts of other modules that > if you briefly need a lock to manipulate it's per-cpu structures, > it is possible a spinlock might be a better choice. > (depending on how long you hold it for.) Being able to uma_free while holding a spinlock would be very nice. -- Jonathan Mini http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message