John Baldwin wrote: >On Tuesday 19 October 2004 05:25 pm, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >> >>>On Tuesday 19 October 2004 12:01 pm, Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:26AM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Brian Fundakowski Feldman writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You should never not run with WITNESS_SKIPSPIN if you use >>>>>>modules. Any spin mutexes not listed statically in the witness >>>>>>code will cause your machine to immediately panic. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If this is true (and I'm not disputing it), shouldn't it be >>>>>noted in GENERIC and/or NOTES? For that matter, what's the penalty >>>>>for not automatically including it as part of WITNESS? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Sometimes you don't want to use it, e.g. if you actually want to trace >>>>spinlock operations with witness. >>>> >>>> >>>True spin mutexes should be rarely used anyways, so I don't think modules >>>needing spin mutexes is all that big of an issue. Almost all mutexes >>>should just be regular mutexes. >>> >>> >>netgraph uses a spin mutex for it's node locks >> >> > >This is likely a bug, esp. given that normal mutexes adaptively spin when it >is advantageous to do so. :) > now that we have read-write locks it may be worth re looking at teh netgraph version of same to see if they can be used instead, but I doubt that the generic ones would be as lightweight. > > >Received on Tue Oct 19 2004 - 21:16:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:18 UTC