On Saturday 18 February 2006 23:10, Andrew Thompson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 01:42:11PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday 15 February 2006 16:15, Andrew Thompson wrote: > > > Here is a patch that changes if_bridge to use rwlock(9) rather than the > > > handrolled ref counting. Can I please get it reviewed to ensure I have > > > the changes correct. I pondered if the order of unlocking the softc > > > mutex and grabbing the rlock mattered but decided it didn't. > > > > Have you thought about replacing both the mutex and ref-count with the > > single rwlock? (Perhaps that is infeasible, but it would be somewhat > > pointless to just lock one lock so you can turn around and lock the > > next.) > > The bridge code makes use of callout_init_mtx(), can a rwlock be passed > instead of a mutex? No. You could use callout_init() and mark it MPSAFE and handle the teardown race yourself perhaps. I'd be interested in benchmarks, btw, of this patch as I'd imagine it is actually a pessimization because you are trading simple arith operations for atomic operations to mess with the rw lock. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Mon Feb 20 2006 - 17:58:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:52 UTC