From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 21 20:19:29 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8336416A47F;
	Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:19:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Received: from groat.ugcs.caltech.edu (groat.ugcs.caltech.edu
	[131.215.176.110])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF6E43D46;
	Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:19:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Received: by groat.ugcs.caltech.edu (Postfix, from userid 3640)
	id 201D75880B; Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:19:27 -0700
From: Paul Allen <nospam@ugcs.caltech.edu>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20060621201927.GJ28128@groat.ugcs.caltech.edu>
References: <20060612054115.GA42379@xor.obsecurity.org>
	<20060621183543.GC82074@funkthat.com>
	<20060621194412.N8526@fledge.watson.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060621194412.N8526@fledge.watson.org>
Sender: jd@ugcs.caltech.edu
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FILEDESC_LOCK() implementation
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:19:29 -0000

>From Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:46:33PM +0100:
> I would optimize very carefully here, the trade-offs are tricky, and we may 
> find that by making locking more complex, we cause cache problems, increase 
> lock hold periods, etc, even if we decrease contention.  I've wondered a 
> bit about a model where we loan fd's to threads to optimize repeated access 
> to the same fd by the same thread, but this mostly makes sense in the 
> context of a 1:1 model rather than an m:n model.
I apologize for not understanding all of the uses of the FILEDESC lock but,
isn't the more obvious partitioning per-cpu: each cpu may allocate from a 
range of fd, which cpu cache used depends on where the thread happens 
to be running.  When closing a fd, it is returned to the local (possibly 
different cpu cache).  A watermark is used to generate an IPI message to
rebalance the caches as needed.