Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Attilio Rao <attilio@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_mutex.c
Message-ID:  <20070605121953.V606@10.0.0.1>
In-Reply-To: <200706051511.56553.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <200706051857.l55IvAYP094328@repoman.freebsd.org> <200706051511.56553.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, John Baldwin wrote:

> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 02:57:09 pm Attilio Rao wrote:
>> attilio     2007-06-05 18:57:09 UTC
>>
>>   FreeBSD src repository
>>
>>   Modified files:
>>     sys/kern             kern_mutex.c
>>   Log:
>>   Fix a problem with not-preemptive kernels caming from mis-merging of
>>   existing code with the new thread_lock patch.
>>   This also cleans up a bit unlock operation for mutexes.
>>
>>   Approved by: jhb, jeff(mentor)
>
> Specifically, this retires the explicit preemption code in mtx_unlock()
> (inherited from BSD/OS) in the #ifndef PREEMPTION case.  We now only do
> preemptions as a scheduling decision in the scheduler and only
> #ifdef PREEMPTION.

I believe we also should replace thread_lock() and thread_unlock() with 
calls to spinlock_enter()/exit() on !SMP and make thread_set_lock() a 
no-op for this case.  Does that sounds right to everyone?

Thanks,
Jeff

>
> -- 
> John Baldwin
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070605121953.V606>