Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:16:32 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Acquiring a lock on the same CPU that holds it - what can be done? Message-ID: <52CE3EC0.9060808@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140109053113.GW59496@kib.kiev.ua> References: <CAJ-Vmok-AJkz0THu72ThTdRhO2h1CnHwffq=cFZGZkbC=cWJZA@mail.gmail.com> <52CD7D07.2010608@FreeBSD.org> <20140108185912.GU59496@kib.kiev.ua> <52CDC376.5040302@FreeBSD.org> <20140109053113.GW59496@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 09/01/2014 07:31 Konstantin Belousov said the following: > I.e. you propose to extend the prioriry propagation to all cases of lock > acquisition. This is not quite correct as well, but now in the other > direction, since it prevents non-contending high-priority thread from > running. Yes. > I think a good experiment would be to add critical_enter/critical_exit > to non-sleepable locks and see. Yes. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52CE3EC0.9060808>