Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:31:13 GMT From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 132507 for review Message-ID: <200801042031.m04KVDaI043675@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=132507 Change 132507 by jhb@jhb_mutex on 2008/01/04 20:30:50 Update. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#96 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#96 (text+ko) ==== @@ -40,21 +40,10 @@ - Remove some bogus atomic_load_acq()'s and add ia32_pause()'s to stop_cpus() and restart_cpus(). - Untested -- Cleanup the SMP rendezvous code to properly use membar's to ensure function - pointers are up to date before deferencing them. - - Untested - Don't allow kthreads to get signalled and do bad things - Untested - Change amd64 to use [ls]fence instructions for memory barriers. - Untested (and no hardware, maybe peter can test) -- Add a kproc API that does what kthread does right now -- Add a real kthread API that creates just another thread inside of a kproc - - Figure out what needs to be done to make a new kthread.. should each - kproc have one ksegroup and one kse per cpu? - - Do I just add the kse's when the first new thread is created? - - Consolidate most of the kernel procs into a 'system' kernel proc that - would be pid 0. - - Stick all the 'idle threads' in a single 'idle' kernel proc. - kill taskqueue_swi in favor of taskqueue_thread since the only thing swi buys is being able to swi_sched() from a fast handler, but that doesn't make sense because you can't actually enqueue a task onto its queue from @@ -81,6 +70,5 @@ - jhb_needresched - scheduler fun - jhb_preemption - preemption - jhb_proc - proc locking -- jhb_proc_slock - per-process spin lock Space reserved for child branches:
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200801042031.m04KVDaI043675>