On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Konstantin Belousov > <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 11:37:57PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Konstantin Belousov > >> <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Nov 02, 2014 at 10:17:26PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> >> I think that your initial patch (what is in head now) is a better > >> >> approach. > >> >> I would just make it a lockinit() flag to make it less alien to the KPI. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Ok. > >> > > >> > Can you explain what would the proposed lockinit() flag do ? What should > >> > it change comparing with the current code ? > >> > >> You now provide LK_NODDLKTREAT on a call basis. > >> The lockinit() flag would embed this into the lock attribute and make > >> it always real, without the need for the callers to provide > >> LK_NODDLKTREAT on a call basis. > > > > Am I reading your proposal right ? Do you mean, that for all vnodes, > > I should disable exclusive starvation avoidance at all ? I completely > > disagree with this. > > No, I'm saying that we should support doing this at the KPI level. Not > that you should enable this for all the vnodes.
I am unable to decipher your proposal. The property of guaranteed non-recursive shared request is per call site, it is not global for the life of lock. As such, I do not understand what would a proposed flag for lockinit(9) indicate to kern_lock.c, vs. the currently passed flag to __lockmgr_args(9). Only specific calls need to avoid check for td_lk_slocks != 0, not specific locks. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
