From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun  9 18:15:05 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 61C3616A4CE; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 18:15:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C3E9B43D45; Wed,  9 Jun 2004 18:15:04 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i59IEYhA057190;
	Wed, 9 Jun 2004 20:14:34 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@FreeBSD.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:06:42 -0000."
             <20040609180642.GA33304@freefall.freebsd.org> 
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:14:34 +0200
Message-ID: <57189.1086804874@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org>
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_proc.c 
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:15:05 -0000

In message <20040609180642.GA33304@freefall.freebsd.org>, Bosko Milekic writes:

>  While this idea is initially appealing, you should be aware that
>  it is not as straight-forward as it sounds.
>
>  Namely, it is sometimes more advantageous to protect the manipulation
>  of the reference count within a section of code already protected by
>  an appropriate object mutex, and other times (in the absence of a mutex),
>  it might be more advantageous to use atomic ops (no need for a mutex,
>  slightly less costly per-instance).  So defining an API that does one
>  OR the other might not always be appropriate.

A still hot from the oven example of this is the code I just added
in kern/tty.c:  ttyrel() needs to do more locking than ttyref() because
it might unlink the tty from a TAILQ whereas ttyref() will never touch
the TAILQ.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.