From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 28 7: 0:17 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990B837B431 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 06:58:48 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 23603 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 14:58:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([65.91.152.52]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 28 Feb 2002 14:58:05 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g1SEvsG40882; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:57:54 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:57:48 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Patch for critical_enter()/critical_exit() & interrupt assem Cc: FreeBSD current users Cc: FreeBSD current users , Seigo Tanimura , Bosko Milekic , Alfred Perlstein , Terry Lambert , Bruce Evans , Matthew Dillon 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 26-Feb-02 Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, John Baldwin wrote: >> >> My suggestion will be to back it out. I would rather not have to make said >> suggestion. Can you please try to fit this into the existing framework >> rather >> than ripping it all up? We need to finalize and test the design before we >> hardcode too many assumptions about the implementation into the interface. >> You >> have pointed out some issues with the current interface which are valid and >> I >> would like to address those, however, there are still changes to the MI >> implementation that need to go in once it doesn't crash right and left. If >> you >> wish I could commit the code and make current a living hell for everyone, >> but >> my ethics don't permit me to test code that I know is broken. >> > > You know john, I wish you would commit more often and let it break things > occasionally. > It's REALLY HARD for anyone else to comment and help if you keep doing on > P4 which is NOT the project Souce control system. > Even with cvsup assistanace, it's just no-where near as convenient as > having it checked in. And after you HAVE checked it in, others can help > find and fix problems.. as it is you are "on your own". > (This is the reason I will shortly check in the KSE diffs on a branch) *sigh* Preemptive kernels don't even make it out of single user mode for SMP machines, ok? We aren't talking minor breakage here, we are talking _extreme_ breakage. If people want to play with it, preempt.patch on freefall is updated via a cron job every half hour or so. Unfortunately, however, it's in a limbo atm due to KSE and needing to sort out how the priorities are going to work. It will really be better to let KSE settle into the scheduler first adn then add preemption to the scheduler itself afterwards. The reason I'm not pushing preemption into the tree fully (I've already committed half of the original patch) is that there is other work (proc locking for example) that gets us more bang for the buck. -- 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