From owner-freebsd-alpha  Thu Sep  5 13:41:21 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3731B37B400; Thu,  5 Sep 2002 13:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8790A43E42; Thu,  5 Sep 2002 13:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu)
Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30])
	by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09803;
	Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:41:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from gallatin@localhost)
	by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id g85KekH58601;
	Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu)
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15735.49486.931825.65696@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org
Subject: RE: ithread preemption
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020905163105.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References: <15735.47756.501169.199225@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
	<XFMail.20020905163105.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-alpha.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-alpha>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-alpha>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


John Baldwin writes:
 > 
 > On 05-Sep-2002 Andrew Gallatin wrote:
 > > 
 > > John Baldwin writes:
 > >  > Solaris doesn't run on alpha, but it also a bit different in its approach.
 > >  > I do wonder if there is a way we can violate an assumption in PAL due to
 > >  > migration though.  That is, a thread could return to PAL on a different
 > >  > CPU than the one the interrupt was originally sent to.  This might explain
 > >  > why only SMP has problems.
 > >  > 
 > > 
 > > Hey ... I think you have it on the nose!   That makes the most sense
 > > I've heard yet.
 > > 
 > > Do we have any way to bind a thread to a cpu?
 > 
 > I used to.  Then KSE3 was committed.  I suppose I could rewrite it from
 > scratch again.
 > 

Ugh.  It would be great if you could.  Even if it doesn't fix this, it
might be generally useful.

Thanks!

Drew

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