Issue #2449 has been updated by Venkatesh Srinivas.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 09:21:41PM -0800, Adam Sakareassen via Redmine wrote: > >Issue #2449 has been updated by Adam Sakareassen. > >File 0001-Fix-INVARIANT-build-issue.patch added > >> * I think the "++spin->countb;" can be moved up into the INVARIANTS too. > >I agree. A new patch is attached with such changes. (Disregard the previous >patch file) In the version of the spinlock just before the s/x mode went in, the ++spin->countb was actually important for performance on a 48-core (4 socket x 12-core) K10 machine I believe; there should be logs of discussion on IRC from October or November 2011 discussing it. >countb is not referred to anywhere in the kernel code outside of Invariants >code. I have left it's definition in the header files at this stage. It >looks like some of the comments in those header files could use with an >update. It appears the code increments or decrements counta. Rather than use >a chase counter as the comments suggest. > The chased counter comment was a relic from a past version of the spinlock code. -- vs; ---------------------------------------- Submit #2449: INVARIANTS option fix. http://bugs.dragonflybsd.org/issues/2449 Author: Adam Sakareassen Status: Closed Priority: Normal Assignee: Category: Target version: With the INVARIANTS option defined the kernel does not build. This small patch fixes the issue. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in it. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://bugs.dragonflybsd.org/my/account
