John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday 21 October 2007 04:56:30 am Kris Kennaway wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071020 10:21] wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hey guys, I have LOCK_PROFILING done for a product based on FreeBSD-6,
this means I can relatively easily backport LOCK_PROFILING from
FreeBSD-7
to FreeBSD-6.
Do we want this?
I'd like to do it if people want it.
I think it should be done, performance is a lot better than the old 6.x
version and it also adds another very useful performance metric (time
spent waiting for the lock). The only concern is that it doesn't break
ABI support when not compiled in, but I'm pretty sure you've already
told
me this is OK. Thanks for looking at this.
This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper
for
6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable
and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related
products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any
remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make
sure
to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the
option and details have changed.
I still get confused as to the meaning of this...
It only breaks ABI when it's enabled.
I think that is OK, right?
Yes, that is fine. Other existing debugging options also break ABI when
enabled, so it's OK.
Well, MUTEX_PROFILING does and LOCK_PROFILING is the same thing. This option
is a known "special case" that breaks the ABI and people using it should
already be aware of that. Other debugging options (INVARIANTS, WITNESS,
etc.) do not affect the ABI.
DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS and/or DEBUG_LOCKS also break the ABI.
Kris
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
