From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  1 04:37:49 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 F37D537B401; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 04:37:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E6D0743F75; Tue,  1 Apr 2003 04:37:47 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h31CbjSM032985;
	Tue, 1 Apr 2003 14:37:45 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:33:19 +0400."
             <20030401123319.GA8399@comp.chem.msu.su> 
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 14:37:45 +0200
Message-ID: <32984.1049200665@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: "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 12:37:49 -0000

In message <20030401123319.GA8399@comp.chem.msu.su>, Yar Tikhiy writes:
>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?

Yes, but indicative of code which needs attention, but 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?

Yes, but there are other reasons why you would generally not want
to spend too much time in the timeout function, mostly that it may
screw up other time-critical things in the system.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.