From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  1 04:33:36 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6A937B401
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 04:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (comp-ext.chem.msu.su [158.250.32.157])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B1E43F3F
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 04:33:31 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su)
Received: from comp.chem.msu.su (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.3p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h31CXKhE010334
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:33:20 +0400 (MSD)
	(envelope-from yar@comp.chem.msu.su)
Received: (from yar@localhost)
	by comp.chem.msu.su (8.12.3p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h31CXKP1010333
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:33:20 +0400 (MSD)
	(envelope-from yar)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:33:19 +0400
From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20030401123319.GA8399@comp.chem.msu.su>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i
Subject: "Expensive timeout(9) function..."
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:33:37 -0000

Hello,

I'm getting the following DIAGNOSTIC messages on my -CURRENT box:

  Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc02677e0(0) 0.006095064 s

(it's uma_timeout(), which triggers the warning once per boot)

  Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.006581587 s
  Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.008510173 s

(and this one is fxp_tick(); it triggers the warning from time to time)

Are those warnings harmless?

As far as my understanding of the issue reaches, a timeout function
is called under protection of the Giant mutex unless it's marked
as MP-safe, and that's the reason to spend as little time as possible
in it.  Right?

-- 
Yar