[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: vwakeup: neg numoutput
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:27:07AM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > > Would this be a good candidate for the atomic update operations? That way
> > > you don't need a lock.
> > Could be, but then it needs to be updated atomically everywhere.
> But if you can't take a lock, then you need to do something. :-) And
> either cscope or eid (probably eid) can help you change the whole tree at
I don't know either, but I can do it with grep :)
I don't know how to translate this kind of construct then:
while (vp->v_numoutput > 0)
they're used in several places. There are also places where it seems it's
expected to have vp->v_numoutput stable for several lines of code:
while (vp->v_numoutput != 0)
dirty = !LIST_EMPTY(&vp->v_dirtyblkhd);
there's also genfs_do_putpages().
I'm not sure it's doable to change this to atomic ops.
Last, I suspect ccd.c also has locking issues with v_numoutput and locking.
Would using a software interrupt to run the xbdback handler work to take
v_interlock mutex ?
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
Main Index |
Thread Index |