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 ; 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 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 "Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:38:46 MST." Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:37:51 +0200 From: Mark Murray 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