On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:39:48 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:29:56PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:25:27 pm Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > Looking at how selrecord() / selwakeup() and their Linux counterparts > > > poll_wait() and wake_up() are used, i noticed the following: > .... > > > I wonder if we could use the same optimization as Linux: > > > as soon as pollscan/selscan detects a non-blocking fd, > > > make selrecord a no-op (which is probably as simple > > > as setting SELTD_RESCAN; and since it only goes up > > > we do not need to lock to check it). > > > > Yes, I think this would work fine. I think setting SELTD_RESCAN as a way > > to > > do it is fine as well. > > excellent, thanks. > > I also have two related questions: > > 1. why isn't the struct mtx part of the struct selinfo instead > of being grabbed from the mtxpool_select ?
I think this is because there is no selinfo_init() and no selinfo_destroy(), so there is no way to manage the lifetime of the mutex were it embedded into the structure. Also, if there are a lot of these structures, but only a subset of them are ever accessed, then a smaller set of locks that are hashed onto the structures may work just fine without introducing extra contention (but with the benefit of saving space in the structures). > 2. am i correct that we do need to protect concurrent invocations > of selrecord() on the same selinfo because mtx_pool_find() > return the same mutex for a given struct selinfo ? If you mean 'do not need', yes. mtx_pool_find() does a hash on the address, so it will always return the same lock for a given selinfo, and no external locking should be needed by callers. However, callers often need to check other state for which they need to hold a lock anyway. OTOH, if, for example, socket buffer locks were reader/writer locks, sopoll_generic() could use read locks on the socket buffers even while calling selrecord(). > In case, any objections if i add some comments to the code > to explain the above ? Not from me. :) -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
