Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 15 May 2011 19:24:50 +0300
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
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
Message-ID:  <4DCFFE52.1090002@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <201105151209.13846.max@love2party.net>
References:  <4DCD357D.6000109@FreeBSD.org> <4DCFE8FA.6080005@FreeBSD.org> <4DCFEE33.5090808@FreeBSD.org> <201105151209.13846.max@love2party.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DCFFE52.1090002>