Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Alan Cox <alc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 01:57:00 -0500
Attilio Rao wrote:
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?
Yes, but let's do that in a later patch, not this one.
Alan
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- References:
- sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Attilio Rao
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Attilio Rao
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Attilio Rao
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Bruce Evans
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Attilio Rao
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Attilio Rao
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Alan Cox
- Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- From: Attilio Rao
- sched_lock && thread_lock()
- Prev by Date: Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- Next by Date: Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- Previous by thread: Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- Next by thread: Re: sched_lock && thread_lock()
- Index(es):