Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:12:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Stephan Uphoff <ups@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 locking.9 rmlock.9 src/sys/conf files src/sys/kern kern_rmlock.c subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c src/sys/sys _rmlock.h lock.h pcpu.h rmlock.h smp.h Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0711251207590.8538@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <47492064.7080108@freebsd.org> References: <200711081447.lA8EltXO052057@repoman.freebsd.org> <47492064.7080108@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Darren Reed wrote: > Stephan Uphoff wrote: >> ups 2007-11-08 14:47:55 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> share/man/man9 locking.9 sys/conf files >> sys/kern subr_lock.c subr_pcpu.c subr_smp.c sys/sys >> lock.h pcpu.h smp.h Added files: >> share/man/man9 rmlock.9 sys/kern kern_rmlock.c >> sys/sys _rmlock.h rmlock.h Log: >> Initial checkin for rmlock (read mostly lock) a multi reader single >> writer >> lock optimized for almost exclusive reader access. (see also rmlock.9) >> > > Is there a white paper or other documentation around somewhere that > discusses the benefits/tradeoffs with using rmlock vs rwlock? Why aren't we using the rwlock interfaces, but just allowing a different behavior when the lock is created (rwlock_init2() or something)? It would seem simpler to keep the same interface and allow easy toggling between rwlocks and rmlocks. The same way we can initialize kernel mutexes differently (MTX_DEF, MTX_SPIN) could be applied here. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0711251207590.8538>