From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug 18 01:40:56 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B6D16A420;
	Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:40:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9426743D46;
	Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:40:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7I1euH8080957;
	Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id j7I1euEq080956;
	Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:40:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rizzo)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:40:56 -0700
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20050817184056.A72643@xorpc.icir.org>
References: <42F9ECF2.8080809@freebsd.org> <200508170836.05861.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
	<20050817093332.A85431@xorpc.icir.org>
	<200508171328.29654.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <200508171328.29654.jhb@FreeBSD.org>;
	from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:28:28PM -0400
Cc: gnn@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Special schedulers, one CPU only kernel, one only userland
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:40:57 -0000

On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:28:28PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
...
> fxp(4)'s locking is somewhat buggy where you are looking probably.  I think 
> I've already committed the fixes to HEAD so that detach() is less 
> discouraging (we just lock fxp_stop() in detach now).  The calls to 

well, my specific concern with the detach routine (but I was wrong,
at least on this part) was that dropping the lock could cause the struct to
go away while the interrupt handler was working on it.
Now i see that this should be safe because bus_teardown_intr() 
blocks until we are out of the handler (the comment "Unhook interrupt
before dropping lock." is probably stale...), and given that
the detach() handler runs under giant and we cannot have multiple
instances of it, at least this path seems safe.

However I am still unclear on what happens if a detach() is racing with the
output path (leading to fxp_start()).

	cheers
	luigi