Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:05:57 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Convert P_COWINPROGRESS to per-thread lock-less flag.. Message-ID: <200310232005.h9NK5veN007816@beastie.mckusick.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:30:15 EDT." <XFMail.20031023143015.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:30:15 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Convert P_COWINPROGRESS to per-thread lock-less flag.. Cc: mckusick@mckusick.com X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match As part of the proc locking, I have a patch that converts the per-process P_COWINPROGRESS flag to a per-thread flag instead. The per-thread flag is a TDP_COWINPROGRESS flag stored in td_pflags which does not require any locks. This removes the last user of p_flag that does not use the proc lock. Are there any problems with making this flag per-thread instead of per-process? http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/cow.patch -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ I do not see any problems with it being per-thread. Kirk McKusick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200310232005.h9NK5veN007816>