From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 28 10:45:43 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A0B37B41B; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:45:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) id g1SIj0U37687; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:45:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:45:00 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200202281845.g1SIj0U37687@apollo.backplane.com> To: Julian Elischer Cc: John Baldwin , FreeBSD current users , FreeBSD current users , Seigo Tanimura , Bosko Milekic , Alfred Perlstein , Terry Lambert , Bruce Evans Subject: Re: Patch for critical_enter()/critical_exit() & interrupt assem References: 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 Not to put too fine a point on it, but, I don't see how this can possibly justify preventing me from committing my critical_*() stuff. You've just stated publically that your preemption stuff is unusable as it currently stands. Why am I supposed to wait an arbitrary period of time for you to fix, test, and commit it? I would REALLY like to commit my critical_*() stuff, and for the record this will also include the stage-2 stuff described in the original commit comments that will be made a few days after the current commit. -Matt Matthew Dillon :> :> 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