From owner-freebsd-smp Wed Sep 6 11:38:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F87337B423 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e86IcFP17675; Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 11:38:14 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Adagio Vangogh Cc: joel boutros , smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sept 5th patch ... Message-ID: <20000906113814.K18862@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000906180520.8B54A37B422@hub.freebsd.org> <39B68C5C.3C21C55E@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <39B68C5C.3C21C55E@pacbell.net>; from adagio_v@pacbell.net on Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 11:26:36AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Adagio Vangogh [000906 11:33] wrote: > > > joel boutros wrote: > > > the general trick is locking critical sections of code or data. > > previously when you did an splXXX(), you were assured that you > > weren't going to get interrupted by anything of specified priority > > or lower, so it was safe to assume your data probably wasn't going > > to change out from under you. > > FreeBSD has always used the notion of a "class" mask for interrupts > and not priorities. Ie, all network devices fell under the net class and > > only a member of this class would block the rest of the members in the > same class. How's this handled? It's not going to be. :) We're doing fine grained locks. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message