Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:17:57 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r264321 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <201404111417.57601.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <2775D53A-8728-4E8D-B53D-ADC00649D737@FreeBSD.org> References: <201404101815.s3AIFZx3065541@svn.freebsd.org> <2775D53A-8728-4E8D-B53D-ADC00649D737@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, April 11, 2014 6:56:16 am Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On 10 Apr 2014, at 18:15 , John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > +/* Global timewait lock */ > > +static VNET_DEFINE(struct rwlock, tw_lock); > > +#define V_tw_lock VNET(tw_lock) > > Why do we virtualise individual locks now? Usually we only do for those embedded into larger virtualised data structures? Does this align with an independently virtualised data structure (in which case the lock should be part of that)? The larger structure is currently a single TAILQ: static VNET_DEFINE(TAILQ_HEAD(, tcptw), twq_2msl); #define V_twq_2msl VNET(twq_2msl) Would seem overkill to make a separate struct just for the TAILQ_HEAD and lock? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201404111417.57601.jhb>