On 1 January 2014 21:53, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 02.01.2014 06:51, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> Why not?
>
> Hi, Adrian,
>
> now, after a deeper look I think it is ok. Sorry.
> Also there are several places where wlock can be changed to rlock.
Cool commit away!
Thanks!
-a
On 02.01.2014 06:51, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Why not?
Hi, Adrian,
now, after a deeper look I think it is ok. Sorry.
Also there are several places where wlock can be changed to rlock.
--
WBR, Andrey V. Elsukov
___
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
Why not?
Adrian
On Jan 1, 2014 6:13 PM, "Andrey V. Elsukov" wrote:
> On 01.01.2014 04:56, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > Author: adrian
> > Date: Wed Jan 1 00:56:26 2014
> > New Revision: 260151
> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260151
> >
> > Log:
> > Use an RLOCK here instead of an
On 01.01.2014 04:56, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Author: adrian
> Date: Wed Jan 1 00:56:26 2014
> New Revision: 260151
> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260151
>
> Log:
> Use an RLOCK here instead of an RWLOCK - matching all the other calls
> to lla_lookup().
>
> This drastically
Author: adrian
Date: Wed Jan 1 00:56:26 2014
New Revision: 260151
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260151
Log:
Use an RLOCK here instead of an RWLOCK - matching all the other calls
to lla_lookup().
This drastically reduces the very high lock contention when doing parallel