Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 20:04:21 +0100 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>, Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Penta Upa <bsdboot@gmail.com> Subject: Re: vm_page_t related KBI [Was: Re: panic at vm_page_wire with FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 3] Message-ID: <CAJ-FndD-REes_uHY6EZ3xHEtj2Qn3qX0HCb83xELRmVj9=UaJA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndD%2Bj6WKmsLW9Kv2nDKEJePe=js3xmmj6m6NW3eS1RZD-w@mail.gmail.com> References: <20111105141306.GW50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAMBSHm86TaJnRRgmPA_t7tiPfQsPyoTqz3ymdHSY1H3t5G864Q@mail.gmail.com> <20111105151530.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4EB595FA.4020500@rice.edu> <20111106124331.GP50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4EB81942.70501@rice.edu> <20111107193516.GA50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAJ-FndDsrVk7EjjtE=QuhaJE1_k7Q1BvQ%2BxriJPnGzLXJQr1sg@mail.gmail.com> <20111116084542.GY50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAJ-FndAwWzFJgpCdaaE=YkipZSCtE6Vb8-LEK2_qS=bVhRM3OQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111118105224.GB50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAJ-FndAULb9r-FVaBparSJVtoSEQuX7%2BwhCoBNdQi7n%2B=UpEdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCZqwvbi2N=f=5TxkHH3gaKAGxipPoHBCFLqF=sLOTqdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndD%2Bj6WKmsLW9Kv2nDKEJePe=js3xmmj6m6NW3eS1RZD-w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2011/11/20 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: > 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: >> 2011/11/18 Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: >>> 2011/11/18 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: >>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:40:28AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: >>>>> 2011/11/16 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: >>>>> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:15:01PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: >>>>> >> 2011/11/7 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>: >>>>> >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 11:45:38AM -0600, Alan Cox wrote: >>>>> >> >> Ok. =C2=A0I'll offer one final suggestion. =C2=A0Please conside= r an alternative >>>>> >> >> suffix to "func". =C2=A0Perhaps, "kbi" or "KBI". =C2=A0In other= words, something >>>>> >> >> that hints at the function's reason for existing. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > Sure. Below is the extraction of only vm_page_lock() bits, toget= her >>>>> >> > with the suggested rename. When Attilio provides the promised si= mplification >>>>> >> > of the mutex KPI, this can be reduced. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> My tentative patch is here: >>>>> >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline.patch >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I need to make more compile testing later, but it already compiles >>>>> >> GENERIC + modules fine on HEAD. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The patch provides a common entrypoint, option independent, for bo= th >>>>> >> fast case and debug/compat case. >>>>> >> Additively, it almost entirely fixes the standard violation of the >>>>> >> reserved namespace, as you described (the notable exception being = the >>>>> >> macro used in the fast path, that I want to fix as well, but in a >>>>> >> separate commit). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Now the file/line couplet can be passed to the "_" suffix variant = of >>>>> >> the flag functions. >>>>> > Yes, this is exactly KPI that I would use when available for the >>>>> > vm_page_lock() patch. >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> eadler@ reviewed the mutex.h comment. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please let me know what you think about it, as long as we agree on= the >>>>> >> patch I'll commit it. >>>>> > But I also agree with John that imposing large churn due to the eli= mination >>>>> > of the '__' prefix is too late now. At least it will make the chang= e >>>>> > non-MFCable. Besides, we already lived with the names for 10+ years= . >>>>> > >>>>> > I will be happy to have the part of the patch that exports the mtx_= XXX_(mtx, >>>>> > file, line) defines which can be used without taking care of LOCK_D= EBUG >>>>> > or MUTEX_NOINLINE in the consumer code. >>>>> >>>>> Ok, this patch should just add the compat stub: >>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch >>>> Am I right that I would use mtx_lock_(mtx, file, line) etc ? >>>> If yes, I am fine with it. >>> >>> Yes that is correct. >>> >>> However, I'm a bit confused on one aspect: would you mind using >>> _mtx_lock_flags() instead? >>> If you don't mind the "underscore namespace violation" I think I can >>> make a much smaller patch against HEAD for it. >>> >>> Otherwise, the one now posted should be ok. >> >> After thinking more about it, I think that is basically the shorter >> version I can came up with. >> >> Please consider: >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/mutexfileline2.patch > > This is now committed as r227758,227759, you can update your patch now. This other patch converts sx to a similar interface which cleans up vm_map.= c: http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/sxfileline.patch What do you think about it? Attilio --=20 Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndD-REes_uHY6EZ3xHEtj2Qn3qX0HCb83xELRmVj9=UaJA>