Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:35:14 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch to optimize "bare" critical sections Message-ID: <0F35A925-3FF3-11D9-8DD8-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <200411231631.00945.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200411231500.55841.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200411231631.00945.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 23, 2004, at 1:31 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 23 November 2004 03:00 pm, John Baldwin wrote: >> Basically, I have a patch to divorce the interrupt disable/deferring >> to >> only happen inside of spinlocks using a new spinlock_enter/exit() API >> (where a spinlock_enter/exit includes a critical section as well) but >> that >> plain critical sections won't have to do such a thing. I've tested >> it on >> i386, alpha, and sparc64 already, and it has also been tested on arm. >> I'm >> unable to get a cross-built powerpc kernel to link (linker dies with a >> signal 6), but the compile did finish. I have cross-compiled ia64 and >> amd64 >> successfully, but have not run tested due to ENOHARDWARE. So, I would >> appreciate it if a few folks could try the patch out on ppc, ia64, and >> amd64 to make sure it works ok. Thanks. > > *cough* Ahem, http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/spinlock.patch No problems on ia64. I haven't loaded the machine to see if I get the wedge Robert was talking about, but I'm not too worried about that at the moment. FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0F35A925-3FF3-11D9-8DD8-000D93C47836>