Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:12:29 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c src/sys/kern subr_witness.c Message-ID: <200408091112.29286.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040808042703.GA64746@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200408042031.i74KVKUf039025@repoman.freebsd.org> <200408041634.03998.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20040808042703.GA64746@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 08 August 2004 12:27 am, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:34:03PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday 04 August 2004 04:31 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > > > jhb 2004-08-04 20:31:19 UTC > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > Modified files: > > > sys/i386/i386 pmap.c > > > sys/kern subr_witness.c > > > Log: > > > Remove a potential deadlock on i386 SMP by changing the lazypmap ipi > > > and spin-wait code to use the same spin mutex (smp_tlb_mtx) as the TLB > > > ipi and spin-wait code snippets so that you can't get into the > > > situation of one CPU doing a TLB shootdown to another CPU that is doing > > > a lazy pmap shootdown each of which are waiting on each other. With > > > this change, only one of the CPUs would do an IPI and spin-wait at a > > > time. > > > > Both this patch and the previous I have tested locally and also sent out > > to current@ for testing. However, I received zero feedback (not even > > useless feedback), so they may theoretically be risky. > > Isn't this the patch I tested for you and reported that it did not fix > the problem? Yes, but I sent out _two_ patches to current@ and you didn't test the second one I guess. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408091112.29286.jhb>