Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 06:14:51 +0000 From: Orit Moskovich <oritm@mellanox.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: FreeBSD spinlock - compatibility layer Message-ID: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D39EF@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> In-Reply-To: <201305211220.16776.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0CFD79@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <201305200950.26834.jhb@freebsd.org> <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D091F@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <201305211220.16776.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From what I've read in "FreeBSD - device drivers" book by Joseph Kong on interrupt handling, you cannot voluntarily context switch (that is, sleep) in interrupt threads . In any case, I think that the functionality of spin mutex should remain as is, and not modified to sleep mutex, as it can be used in places that sleep mustn't be used, or that require the properties of the spin due to performance considerations. -----Original Message----- From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb@freebsd.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:02 PM To: Orit Moskovich Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD spinlock - compatibility layer On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:36:38 am Orit Moskovich wrote: > That's not the case when using taskqueues for deferring execution of > an interrupt handler. > Tasks can be delayed using the global taskqueue taskqueue_swi, which executes its tasks in the context of an interrupt. > In this case sleep is forbidden, and using spin mutex is not (although > might be not recommended). No, swi's run in an interrupt thread, and interrupt threads can use regular mutexes. (That is why they run in a thread context.) The only way you can run in a context requiring a spin lock in a driver is to use an interrupt filter. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D39EF>