Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 23:13:23 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Michal Mertl <mime@traveller.cz>, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Subject: Re: When to use atomic_ functions? (was: 64 bit counters) Message-ID: <20020103224754.G16354-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20020103102543.7737039EC@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > Incidently, probably 90%+ of freebsd boxes (all those that run GENERIC or > similar) are essentially wire-oring the interrupt masks together due to the > slip/ppp drivers in the kernel. On most of them, splanything() pretty much > masks all interrupts. Check tty_imask, net_imask, and bio_imask and see > for yourself (and check cambio/camnet as well). We *almost* have a boolean Er, I think someone named peter fixed this so that it only happens if slip/ppp is actually used. Only RELENG_3 still has the compile-time wiring for slip. > "interrupts on or off" state on most of these systems (not quite but > almost). Almost all except clock and fast interrupts. This may be best (at least for UP). It's more efficient, and strict interrupt prioritisation is rarely important. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020103224754.G16354-100000>