Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks

* Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxxxx> [071126 12:37] wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Max Laier wrote:

attached is a diff to switch the pfil(9) subsystem to rmlocks, which are
more suited for the task. I'd like some exposure before doing the switch,
but I don't expect any fallout. This email is going through the patched
pfil already - twice.

FYI, since people are experimenting with rmlocks as a substitute for
rwlocks, I played with moving the global rwlock used to protect the name
space and linkage of UNIX domain sockets to be an rmlock. Kris didn't see
any measurable change in performance for his MySQL benchmarks, but I
figured I'd post the patches as they give a sense of what change impact
things like reader state management have on code. Attached below. I have
no current plans to commit these changes as they appear not to offer
benefit (either because the rwlock overhead was negigible compared to other
costs in the benchmark, or because the read/write blend was too scewed
towards writes -- I think probably the former rather than the latter).

I would track the read/write lock mix to get an idea of what the
ratio is.

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