From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 5 16:01:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D651065677; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:01:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mdf356@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pw0-f54.google.com (mail-pw0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49D18FC29; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:01:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pwj4 with SMTP id 4so146938pwj.13 for ; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:01:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xbN1Fv55Pv2Qqf9Y1GMeInfDdiE+MyMyPYBzSM87bT0=; b=xQ8ltdfuoYujW2Stw09sJS7qzDQgn5ym1qlOQr5YjPLOppbwnUJn7GmvNw5Fehe98g hNq2S+gzFKvPlV8Z5xxTGg8ZS4q0sABYdBa3g7YCK193oW9V1oQ/sM1JsOLBe2U9EV2x 0jEUdObhegVfTpIGZkCo1b9Maw+kWdIPPdAO8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=KeggLZ6692lO5kOXwACPl8xZBMH5qfvlazOKys+WdyHmwhY9gMbDN/wMLzG/8tWC6O U6mAX2eY8IJFaa2R7CjMH75+CXGvreiWXk6I19Ag/fk6s+fdK+qpGN6/pSBUJMsN1KWz 8l8V8XqcXnOb7C4VZiJUPZXpQnhZS9eJzxYC0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.38.6 with SMTP id l6mr12485570wal.47.1281024082601; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mdf356@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.3.140 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:01:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201007301031.34266.jhb@freebsd.org> <201008041026.17553.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:01:22 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yzOmpixTq9gMWJC5q2S6SJcAAkA Message-ID: From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: mdf@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sched_pin() versus PCPU_GET X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:01:24 -0000 On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >> Actually, I would beg to differ in that case. =A0If PCPU_GET(spinlocks) >> returns non-NULL, then it means that you hold a spin lock, > > ll_count is 0 for the "correct" pc_spinlocks and non-zero for the > "wrong" one, though. =A0So I think it can be non-NULL but the current > thread/CPU doesn't hold a spinlock. > > I don't believe we have any code in the NMI handler. =A0I'm on vacation > today so I'll check tomorrow. I checked and ipi_nmi_handler() doesn't appear to have any local changes. I assume that's where I should look? Thanks, matthew