From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 27 11:31:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B10E37BAC1 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:31:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id OAA17664; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:31:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:31:18 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Nate Williams , nms@otdel-1.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is there spinlocks/semaphores available for drivers? In-Reply-To: <200003271901.LAA42391@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :And would there still be areas of the kernel that disable multiple > :interrupts, perhaps CAM or the network stack for instance? What do > :all the splbio and splnet calls translate into in this new scheme? > : > :-- > :Dan Eischen > > The entire design of the kernel is currently predicated on the spl*() > mechanism. We obviously can't rip it out in a day. I'm guessing it > will probably take two years ... or never if we can eek out sufficient > performance with it still in place. There's a paper that describes how Solaris transitioned from spl()s to mutexes. ISTR they created one mutex for each splxxx. I'll have to find this and re-read it. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message