From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 18 16:28:26 2005 Return-Path: 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 EE53C16A41F; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:28:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mv.twc.weather.com (mv.twc.weather.com [65.212.71.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6A143D48; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:28:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [10.50.40.201] (Not Verified[10.50.40.201]) by mv.twc.weather.com with NetIQ MailMarshal (v6, 0, 3, 8) id ; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:43:26 -0400 From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:23:04 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <42F9ECF2.8080809@freebsd.org> <200508171328.29654.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050817184056.A72643@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20050817184056.A72643@xorpc.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200508181023.05929.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: gnn@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:28:27 -0000 On Wednesday 17 August 2005 09:40 pm, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > 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()). Note that we first down the interface via fxp_stop() and then we unhook it from the network stack using ether_ifdetach(). Once we've done ether_ifdetach() the network stack can't get to the fxp device anymore. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org