labath added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22914#511294, @clayborg wrote:
> OK. I can't complain if it doesn't affect performance and could allow > multiple packets to be in flight with threading, though I think solving this > issue with threading is a bit of a hack, but it should work. Thanks for > running the perf tests. Thanks. I understand your reluctance. I am not completely convinced of the optimality of the solution, but to me it looks like the best way forward at the moment. I want to proceed slowly with this, to make it as little "hacky" and obtrusive as possible. I can't commit this patch yet because it replaces the sequence mutex with a non-recursive rwlock. The biggest offender using recursive locks here is the gdb-remote register context, so I have started to do some cleanups there first, so I am able to get rid of the recursion. (The motivation for https://reviews.llvm.org/D23553). https://reviews.llvm.org/D22914 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
