Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:57:49 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FYI: inpcb/pcbinfo mutex -> rwlock at some point in the mid-distant future Message-ID: <47D8A63D.3050903@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080312175151.V47697@fledge.watson.org> References: <20080312175151.V47697@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > One of those issues is that we need to demonstrate to ourselves that > exclusive access contention is managed as well with rwlocks as with > sleep mutexes, as these locks would continue to be fairly highly > contended in TCP. The other issue is that rwlocks don't support full > priority propagation for reader access, although Jeff Roberson has > recently improved fairness to writers with many readers. Don't forget that p4 bms_netdev contains a number of optimizations for the multicast paths -- there are lock acquisitions which are quite often unnecessary, or whose granularity is too high for the data structure(s) which need to be shared. BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47D8A63D.3050903>