On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Just a small comment:
@@ -60,10 +60,7 @@
u_short fd_cmask; /* mask for file creation */
u_short fd_refcnt; /* thread reference count */
u_short fd_holdcnt; /* hold count on structure + mutex */
-
- struct mtx fd_mtx; /* protects members of this struct */
- int fd_locked; /* long lock flag */
- int fd_wanted; /* "" */
+ struct sx fd_sx; /* protects members of this struct */
struct kqlist fd_kqlist; /* list of kqueues on this filedesc */
int fd_holdleaderscount; /* block fdfree() for shared close() */
int fd_holdleaderswakeup; /* fdfree() needs wakeup */
Maybe it is better if you order the elements by size. Then you don't waste
so many extra bytes on platforms where the fields must be aligned.
This seems reasonable; I'll merge the patch as-is first, minimizing the patch
size of the change against filedesc.h, and then investigate what you suggest
as a followup. Thanks for the comment! Generally speaking, we probably
should be doing a structure size/layout review for things like in-memory
inodes, vnodes, sockets, file descriptors, files, threads, etc, where small
changes in memory overhead can make significant overall changes in memory use
and cache efficiency.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
