From owner-freebsd-smp  Wed Jul  5  9:58:18 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (berserker.twistedbit.com [199.79.183.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ADF037B638
	for <freebsd-smp@freebsd.org>; Wed,  5 Jul 2000 09:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cp@berserker.bsdi.com)
Received: from berserker.bsdi.com (cp@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by berserker.bsdi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14847;
	Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:57:59 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200007051657.KAA14847@berserker.bsdi.com>
Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>,
	Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, David Greenman <dg@root.com>,
	freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: SMP progress (was: Stepping on Toes) 
From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:57:58 -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

}
}
}	I believe ipending wants to go away totally. It really
}isn't meaningful in the thread environment and the locked operations
}needed to support it once multiple processor are running
}in the kernel are more expensive the sti, cli.
}
}Chuck
}

	I should have said that it is the locked operations
needed to supports the masks is the really expensive part, not
ipending itself. Also with the spin locks we want to mask interrupts
to a particular processor not all processors. 


Chuck



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message