On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:26:38 am Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 25.06.2013 20:44, John Baldwin wrote: > > Author: jhb > > Date: Tue Jun 25 18:44:15 2013 > > New Revision: 252209 > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/252209 > > > > Log: > > Several improvements to rmlock(9). Many of these are based on patches > > provided by Isilon. > > - Add an rm_assert() supporting various lock assertions similar to other > > locking primitives. Because rmlocks track readers the assertions are > > always fully accurate unlike rw_assert() and sx_assert(). > > - Flesh out the lock class methods for rmlocks to support sleeping via > > condvars and rm_sleep() (but only while holding write locks), rmlock > > details in 'show lock' in DDB, and the lc_owner method used by > > dtrace. > > - Add an internal destroyed cookie so that API functions can assert > > that an rmlock is not destroyed. > > - Make use of rm_assert() to add various assertions to the API (e.g. > > to assert locks are held when an unlock routine is called). > > - Give RM_SLEEPABLE locks their own lock class and always use the > > rmlock's own lock_object with WITNESS. > > - Use THREAD_NO_SLEEPING() / THREAD_SLEEPING_OK() to disallow sleeping > > while holding a read lock on an rmlock. > > Thanks! > > Would it make sense to move struct rm_queue from struct pcpu itself to > using DPCPU as a next step?
Perhaps. It might make pcpu.h cleaner, aside from that concern I don't think it really matters much. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
