Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:45:26 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: toolchain@freebsd.org, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fast sigblock (AKA rtld speedup) Message-ID: <201301151445.26895.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <B7D94E53-B39D-4E81-A1E0-0F8FC9ED1CEE@freebsd.org> References: <20130107182235.GA65279@kib.kiev.ua> <201301141358.33216.jhb@freebsd.org> <B7D94E53-B39D-4E81-A1E0-0F8FC9ED1CEE@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:21:25 am David Chisnall wrote: > On 14 Jan 2013, at 18:58, John Baldwin wrote: > > > I'm less certain. Note that you can't inline mutex ops until you expose > > the mutexes themselves to userland (that is, making pthread_mutex_t not > > be opaque). > > This is one of the things that will be required anyway if we wish to support process-shared mutexes (they've been in POSIX since 1997, so it's probably getting on for time we did), as the current mutex-is-a-pointer implementation depends on the virtual address space of the creator, and so does not work if the mutex is created in a shared memory segment. Yes, David Xu has a p4 branch with this done already. My point is that I would rather effort be spent on getting that in before attempting your suggestion for our current primitives as the inlining you do now requires that David's changes honor the same ABI in the future. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301151445.26895.jhb>