[snip] > Well, I've thought about changing lc_lock/unlock to return a uintptr_t or > void * instead of an int and then I could make rm_sleep work fine. However, > that still doesn't solve the callout case. The callout case can't be fixed > easily without explicitly allocating storage in the softclock thread itself. > > Also, I don't think you want a pointer in a lock_object. Imagine if two > threads both locked and then slept on the same rm lock in succession while > waiting for a wakeup. You would have two trackers to keep track of, but only > one pointer in the lock_object. > > I'm not sure you need to revert your commit. It should pretty much panic > instantly if someone tries to use it with a read lock instead of a write > lock, even without INVARIANTS. > > -- > John Baldwin
Hi John, I've finally gotten around to dedicate some time to this. The following patch : http://people.freebsd.org/~davide/review/callout_sharedrm.diff is a proposed fix the problem for the callout_rm shared case, based on your suggestions. I've overloaded the lc_lock/lc_unlock functions so that they take an additional void *arg argument which in the callout rm shared case is a pointer to priotracker structure (I used a void * so that it could be used for some other purposes in the future, if any). I've also added a MPASS in the lc_lock()/lc_unlock() functions for all the primitives but rmlock so that is ensured that arg passed is NULL. I'm not completely sure this is required but I put that there as safety belt. The KPI is highly disturbed by this change, but unfortunately I wasn't able to find out a way to workaround the problem without this breakage. While we're breaking things, I guess we can fix the rm_sleep() case as well instead of causing a double breakage. My only doubt is what exactly we should return from lc_unlock/lc_lock, as long as in the, e.g. rwlock case we need to return a boolean that contains lock state (shared/exclusive) whilst in the rmlock case we need to return both the lock state and a pointer to struct rm_priotracker. My best guess is that of introducing a 'struct lockstate' (sorry for the poor name choice, just to give you the idea) which contains these two informations, but probably we can alternatively use a single pointer and store the information about lock state in the low order bits. What's your opinion about? Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" -- Henri Poincare _______________________________________________ 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"
