On 26/05/13 22:20, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > Instead of a pause() that may be too short or too long, how about > waiting for the necessary lock? In other words, replace the kern_yield() > call with VI_LOCK(vp); VI_UNLOCK(vp);. This is also the usual approach > to acquire two locks without imposing an order between them.
Since there might be more than one locked vnode, waiting on a specific locked vnode seemed rather arbitrary, but I agree that the pause is also rather arbitrary. Also, can we be sure that the v_interlock mutex will not be destroyed while the syncer process is waiting for it to be unlocked? > I expect blocking on a mutex to be safe enough; a mutex may not be held > across waiting for hardware or other events. > _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
