Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:42:06 -0700 From: Jon Mini <mini@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UMA locks Message-ID: <20020909014206.GY7265@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209081820000.51214-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20020822200207.S57142-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209081820000.51214-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020909014206.GY7265>