Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()



Alan Cox wrote:
Attilio Rao wrote:

Attilio Rao wrote:

Bruce Evans wrote:

4 more translation errors breaking 8 counters altogether (v_vnodepgsin
is broken twice):


Thanks a lot for the revision, there will be a pending patch in the next hour.


Hello,
Let me know if this patch is right for you and if you have feedbacks, comments, etc:
http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/schedlock/vmmeter3.diff

This should fix translation errors Bruce has found and switching the _SET() method in order to being a simple assignment (as Bruce has suggested).


Let me offer a simple rule of thumb for VMCNT_ADD() vs. PCPU_LAZY_INC(): If the field is NOT under the section labeled "Distribution of page usages." in vmmeter, then PCPU_LAZY_INC() is preferable to VMCNT_ADD() implemented with an atomic op.

Ok, I've updated the patch following your suggestion.
I just left out that vmmeter fields which needs to be incremented not by one but by another value (since PCPU_LAZY_INC() just increments by 1).

Do you think it is more appropriate to expand the PCPU_LAZY_*() interface and let it cover increments not by 1 too?

It would let grow the patch notably since we need to touch all architectures for that however...

Thanks,
Attilio

_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"