Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:27:17 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable Message-ID: <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org> References: <20071019232846.GQ31826@elvis.mu.org> <4719B06F.3000103@FreeBSD.org> <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> [071020 10:21] wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >>Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6, > >>this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from FreeBSD-7 > >>to FreeBSD-6. > >> > >>Do we want this? > >> > >>I'd like to do it if people want it. > > > >I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x > >version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time > >spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break > >ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already told > >me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this. > > This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for > 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable > and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related > products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any > remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure > to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the > option and details have changed. I still get confused as to the meaning of this... It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. I think that is OK, right? -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071020192717.GX31826>