Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:26:35 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: ia64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Patch to optimize "bare" critical sections Message-ID: <200411241026.35486.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <9C77F94E-3DC8-11D9-A2B1-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net> References: <200411231500.55841.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200411231631.00945.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <9C77F94E-3DC8-11D9-A2B1-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 23 November 2004 10:26 pm, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Nov 23, 2004, at 1:31 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 November 2004 03:00 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > >> Basically, I have a patch to divorce the interrupt disable/deferring > >> to > >> only happen inside of spinlocks using a new spinlock_enter/exit() API > >> (where a spinlock_enter/exit includes a critical section as well) but > >> that > >> plain critical sections won't have to do such a thing. I've tested > >> it on > >> i386, alpha, and sparc64 already, and it has also been tested on arm. > >> I'm > >> unable to get a cross-built powerpc kernel to link (linker dies with a > >> signal 6), but the compile did finish. I have cross-compiled ia64 and > >> amd64 > >> successfully, but have not run tested due to ENOHARDWARE. So, I would > >> appreciate it if a few folks could try the patch out on ppc, ia64, and > >> amd64 to make sure it works ok. Thanks. > >> > >> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/spinlock.patch > > > > *cough* Ahem, http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/spinlock.patch > > > > Sorry about that. > > The patch doesn't apply cleanly. Can you create a patch against HEAD > and not your lock branch? Doh, the patch has been updated to be against HEAD now. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200411241026.35486.jhb>