From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 20 22:20:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DEF16A47A; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:20:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1334443D48; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:20:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [10.10.3.185] ([69.15.205.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k5KMKhil004975; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:20:50 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <449874B5.50909@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:20:37 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Konovalov References: <200606202141.k5KLfETG075895@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060621014634.U55744@mp2.macomnet.net> <44987135.1070007@samsco.org> <20060621020909.N56083@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20060621020909.N56083@mp2.macomnet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 lock.9 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:20:55 -0000 Maxim Konovalov wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, 16:05-0600, Scott Long wrote: > > >>Maxim Konovalov wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, 21:41-0000, Maxim Konovalov wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>maxim 2006-06-20 21:41:14 UTC >>>> >>>> FreeBSD src repository >>>> >>>> Modified files: >>>> share/man/man9 lock.9 >>>> Log: >>>> o Remove LK_REENABLE and LK_NOPAUSE lockinit(9) flags, add LK_NOSHARE. >>> >>> >>>Btw, as I see there are not many consumers of lock.9 infrastructure >>>comparing to mutex.9, sx.9 etc in our tree. Is it something derecated? >>> >> >>I guess that VFS doesn't count as being important? > > > As an average user I just want to know what pros and contras for using > lock.9 vs all other locking primitivies. It is not clear from our man > pages and arch book. Sorry if I'm asking something completely stupid. > lockmgr is somewhat analogous to an SX lock. However, due to some of the special considerations needed by VFS in terms of the vnode life cycle and blocking for I/O, they aren't completely functionally equivalent to an SX lock. It would be nice to fix VFS to not need these special considerations, but that is a very complicated and risky task. Scott