From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 11 15:38:59 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF3E37B401 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail17.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.217]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C5743E31 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:38:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 2523 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 22:38:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail17.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 11 Jul 2002 22:38:50 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BMcm033474; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:38:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200207112234.g6BMYXnH012160@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:38:53 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Matthew Dillon Subject: RE: Proposed fix for SMP vm_zeroidle.c Cc: Julian Elischer , Peter Wemm , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Alfred Perlstein Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 11-Jul-2002 Matthew Dillon wrote: > Here is my proposed fix for the page-zeroing problem w/ SMP. It > is untested (I'm about to test it)... I'm looking for comments on > the concept. If the comments are positive and my testing succeeds I > will commit it tonight. > > Basically the idea is simple. Provide a function that mi_switch() can > call when switching in a thread. The page zeroing code sets this > function to cpu_invlpg(CADDR3) on switch-in, thus dealing with any > potential switch between cpu's with virtually no overhead (no overhead > that we care about anyway). > > I daresay that this mechanism could be used for a number of other > purposes as well. > > What do you think? Sounds fine to me. I'm not sure it will be all that useful for other things in the future but it conveniently solves the problem at hand at least. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message