sched_lock && thread_lock()
Attilio Rao
attilio at FreeBSD.org
Thu May 24 14:30:31 UTC 2007
Alan Cox wrote:
> Attilio Rao wrote:
>
>> Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4 more translation errors breaking 8 counters altogether (v_vnodepgsin
>>>> is broken twice):
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the revision, there will be a pending patch in the
>>> next hour.
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>> Let me know if this patch is right for you and if you have feedbacks,
>> comments, etc:
>> http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/schedlock/vmmeter3.diff
>>
>> This should fix translation errors Bruce has found and switching the
>> _SET() method in order to being a simple assignment (as Bruce has
>> suggested).
>
>
> Let me offer a simple rule of thumb for VMCNT_ADD() vs. PCPU_LAZY_INC():
> If the field is NOT under the section labeled "Distribution of page
> usages." in vmmeter, then PCPU_LAZY_INC() is preferable to VMCNT_ADD()
> implemented with an atomic op.
Ok, I've updated the patch following your suggestion.
I just left out that vmmeter fields which needs to be incremented not by
one but by another value (since PCPU_LAZY_INC() just increments by 1).
Do you think it is more appropriate to expand the PCPU_LAZY_*()
interface and let it cover increments not by 1 too?
It would let grow the patch notably since we need to touch all
architectures for that however...
Thanks,
Attilio
More information about the freebsd-arch
mailing list