From owner-freebsd-smp  Wed Sep  6 10:36:54 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp02.iafrica.com (smtp02.iafrica.com [196.7.0.140])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B634D37B423
	for <freebsd-smp@freebsd.org>; Wed,  6 Sep 2000 10:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [196.7.18.138] (helo=grimreaper.grondar.za ident=root)
	by smtp02.iafrica.com with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1)
	id 13Wj7p-000EuV-00; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:36:42 +0200
Received: from grimreaper.grondar.za (mark@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by grimreaper.grondar.za (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id e86Hbqd08340;
	Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:37:55 +0200 (SAST)
	(envelope-from mark@grimreaper.grondar.za)
Message-Id: <200009061737.e86Hbqd08340@grimreaper.grondar.za>
To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>
Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Sept 5th patch ... 
References: <200009060638.e866ckG49084@netplex.com.au> 
In-Reply-To: <200009060638.e866ckG49084@netplex.com.au> ; from Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>  "Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:38:46 MST."
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:37:51 +0200
From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> Remember, the i386 kernel is now running with *NO SUCH THING AS SPLxxx()* -
> interrupt handlers have to do a process context switch and compete for the
> giant lock while before doing their interrupt work.  There is a lot of
> overhead ehere.

So, are there going to be some documented guidelines for us neophyte
kernel-hackers? I have just gotten used to the splfoo()/splx() idea,
and now its gone. How, now, do we write canonical code that doesn't
futz with itself when interrupts/threads/processes happen?

M
--
Mark Murray
Join the anti-SPAM movement: http://www.cauce.org


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message