On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Julian Elischer wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
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.
I think that If anything, we should be going in the other direction..
firstly, mutexes are just rw_locks with no readers. So we might
as well make them the same thing..
Robert already answered my question sufficiently...
I am looking at the way Solaris does its kernel synchronizations.
They have mutexes, CVs, and rwlocks as far as I can see. It is very
convenient to have mutexes and CVs just as their userland counterparts.
Mutexes are mutual exclusion and by definition not rwlock-capable.
You don't want to mix the mutex API with the rwlock or rmlock APIs,
and also, the CV APIs (cv_waitXXX, cv_timedwaitXXX) only take mutex
types as arguments. If the implementations can share code, ok, but
don't share the mutex/CV APIs with the r{mw}lock APIs :-)
Spin and blocking mutexes should in my opinion be defined as different
structures, at least in name so that the compiler hits you with a clue-bat
when you try use a spin-lock with non-spinlock ops etc.
That seems nice, but doesn't go along well with trying to keep a
similar API as Solaris. It is convenient to share the APIs so
that it is easy to change the mtx_init() from a default to a spin
type without changing the rest of the code. We really shouldn't
have a need for spin mutexes if the default mutexes are adaptive,
and if mutexes taken by interrupt handlers are initialized in a
manner similar to Solaris. There really shouldn't be a separate
API for spin mutexes. Once a mutex is initialized as MTX_DEF
or MTX_SPIN, that should be sufficient.
not sure why sx-locks exist at all, as they seem to be a variant of sleep.
I think it's just a convenience function set to allow one to implement
a sleep-derived synchronisation.
Hmm, sx locks seem similar to rmlocks, at least according to the
description:
Shared/exclusive locks are used to protect data that are read far
more often than they are written.
Do we need both?
--
DE
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
