cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_umtx.c src/sys/sys proc.h
mtm at identd.net
Thu Jul 17 07:57:12 PDT 2003
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:12:30AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > ...
> > 2. Once a umtx was contested all future locks and unlocks
> > were happening in the kernel, regardless of whether it
> > was contested or not. To prevent this from happening,
> > when a thread locks a umtx it checks the queue for that
> > umtx and unsets the contested bit if there are no other
> > threads waiting on it. Again, this is slightly more
> > complicated than it needs to be because we can't hold
> > a lock across casuptr(). So, the thread has to check
> > the queue again after unseting the bit, and reset the
> > contested bit if it finds that another thread has put
> > itself on the queue in the mean time.
> > ...
> The in-kernel mutexes handle this case during the unlock
> routine. When unlocking a contested mutex, if there is only
> one waiter, we wake up that waiter and set the lock cookie
> to MTX_UNOWNED without the contested bit set. If the woken
> thread is the only thread to try to acquire the lock, it
> suceeds and the lock remains uncontested until another thread
> blocks trying to lock it. This would mean that the next lock of
> the lock would not need to bounce into the kernel if the lock
> was not owned by anyone.
Initially I was going to do it this way. But there were a couple of
things that concerned me so I thought it would be safer to implement
it the way I did. One of them is that it opens up a race between a
thread that is trying to acquire the umtx for the first time, and the
thread that the unlocker just woke up. I suppose we could introduce
a UMTX_RESERVED or something (UMTX_UNOWNED is already used) that no
one except a thread that just woke up could lock. Is that what you
Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc
mtm at identd.net | D228 1A6F C64E 120A A1C9 A3AA DAE1 E2AF DBCC 68B9
mtm at FreeBSD.Org| FreeBSD - Unleash the Daemon!
More information about the cvs-all