From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 10 10:00:15 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53DB1065670; Tue, 10 May 2011 10:00:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7DF8FC15; Tue, 10 May 2011 10:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id NAA11250; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:00:12 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1QJjjg-000DTF-7K; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:00:12 +0300 Message-ID: <4DC90CAB.7020609@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:00:11 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110503 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <4DC512D6.9070904@FreeBSD.org> <201105090935.54264.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201105090935.54264.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: COUNT_IPIS vs CPU_FOREACH X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:00:15 -0000 on 09/05/2011 16:35 John Baldwin said the following: > On Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:37:26 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> I believe that the following change is needed to fix COUNT_IPIS option. >> Right now it seems to be a noop. >> >> >> mp_ipi_intrcnt: CPU_FOREACH can't be used this early >> >> ... because all_cpus is not set yet. > > Have you tested this? > > all_cpus is set by start_all_aps() from cpu_mp_start() which runs at > SI_SUB_CPU. This SYSINIT runs later at SI_SUB_INTR. > > So I think CPU_FOREACH() should be fine here. I think that you are right, it seems that I've screwed up my original (pre-patch) testing - installed my experimental kernel to a wrong place. -- Andriy Gapon