Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:50:26 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Orit Moskovich <oritm@mellanox.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD spinlock - compatibility layer Message-ID: <201305200950.26834.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0CFD79@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> References: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0CFD79@MTLDAG01.mtl.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 6:04:21 am Orit Moskovich wrote: > Hi, > > I read about the FreeBSD mutex implementation for spinlock in the compatibility layer. > I might be wrong, but I noticed a code section that might be problematic: > > Taken from http://svn.freebsd.org/base/release/9.1.0/sys/ofed/include/linux/spinlock.h: > > static inline void > spin_lock_init(spinlock_t *lock) > { > > memset(&lock->m, 0, sizeof(lock->m)); > mtx_init(&lock->m, "lnxspin", NULL, MTX_DEF | MTX_NOWITNESS); > } > > But MTX_DEF initializes mutex as a sleep mutex: > > By default, MTX_DEF mutexes will context switch when they are already > > held. > > > There is a flag MTX_SPIN Which I think is the right one in this case . > > > > I'd appreciate your take on this issue. Since FreeBSD uses a different approach to interrupt handlers (they run in threads, not in the bottom half), a regular mutex may in fact give the closest match to the same semantics. Regular mutexes are also cheaper and in general preferable to spin mutexes whenever possible. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201305200950.26834.jhb>