* Julian Elischer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> it has been mentioned several times that through the evolution of the
> locking primitives it has come to be that mutexes and exclusively
> acquired reader-writer locks are almost the same in terms of overhead
> and that it might be a good move to define all mutexes to be
> actually just that.
> this would allow people to slowly go through the system, catching low
> hanging fruit by converting some of the mutex operations to reader
> acquisitions wherever a writer is not required, thus reducing general
> system contention.
> Is there any thought on this? Last I heard jhb had confirmed that it
> was feasible..
If this is going to be done, could we have mtx_* macro's pointing to the
proper read/write ops? I know, it's just names, but I think most novice
FreeBSD kernel hackers will almost instantaneously figure out what 'mtx'
Why not make read/write locking a fundamental part of 'mtx' itself, if
it doesn't introduce much overhead?
Ed Schouten <email@example.com>