diff options
| author | Frans Kaashoek <kaashoek@mit.edu> | 2019-07-30 13:07:17 -0400 | 
|---|---|---|
| committer | Frans Kaashoek <kaashoek@mit.edu> | 2019-07-30 13:07:17 -0400 | 
| commit | 9c4f62e8e3e7f114c6f82a75579a815e6329d767 (patch) | |
| tree | a12bda44582cdc8bcb038d3ba358d9cb4087b8a6 | |
| parent | 848d1906e81992c78bee9e9ce5a5d38e107265cc (diff) | |
| download | xv6-labs-9c4f62e8e3e7f114c6f82a75579a815e6329d767.tar.gz xv6-labs-9c4f62e8e3e7f114c6f82a75579a815e6329d767.tar.bz2 xv6-labs-9c4f62e8e3e7f114c6f82a75579a815e6329d767.zip | |
x
| -rw-r--r-- | labs/lock.html | 18 | 
1 files changed, 16 insertions, 2 deletions
| diff --git a/labs/lock.html b/labs/lock.html index a93eb3a..707d6c4 100644 --- a/labs/lock.html +++ b/labs/lock.html @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ workloads.    and run test0 from bcachetest and you will see "!"s.  <p>Modify <tt>bget</tt> so that a lookup for a buffer that is in the -  bcache doesn't need to acquire <tt>bcache.lock</tt>.  This more +  bcache doesn't need to acquire <tt>bcache.lock</tt>.  This is more    tricky than the kalloc assignment, because bcache buffers are truly    shared among processes. You must maintain the invariant that a    buffer is only once in memory. @@ -121,8 +121,13 @@ against, including:  <p>Here are some hints:    <ul> +    <li>Read the description of buffer cache in the xv6 book (Section 7.2).      <li>Use a simple design: i.e., don't design a lock-free implementation. -    <li>Use a simple hash table with locks per bucket +    <li>Use a simple hash table with locks per bucket. +    <li>Searching in hash table for a buffer and allocating an entry +      for that buffer when the buffer is not found must be atomic. +    <li>It is fine to acquire <tt>bcache.lock</tt> in <tt>brelse</tt> +      to update the LRU/MRU list.    </ul>  <p>Check that your implementation has less contention @@ -130,5 +135,14 @@ against, including:  <p>Make sure your implementation passes bcachetest and usertests. +<p>Optional: +  <ul> +  <li>make the buffer cache more scalable (e.g., avoid taking +  out <tt>bcache.lock</tt> on <tt>brelse</tt>). +  <li>make lookup lock-free (Hint: use gcc's <tt>__sync_*</tt> +    functions.) How do you convince yourself that your implementation is correct? +  </ul> +   +    </body>  </html> | 
