From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 11 21:39:05 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7ED266
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:39:05 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from dkandula@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0962C2A5F
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:39:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id j13so8493348wgh.29
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=PtY6xIm59GVaVvvUXwEuG8d/LB1MzYwapg9H03jtcMc=;
 b=XIg/RuwkguFkTgkzblg4lBMipPe5S76hyKq+tTrOHpU5+MzvybhEtMpq6qhfmf/0kn
 sMNRqbq/dCT2fiyUmsk/TRe6bhHBN5qskjvXIftbz5UH37lXuD5NFI21MaIQeNH+8rKD
 0Z0Ytz1GpFv5tm8MoE56VvwzPAezJftRmcWwibKA5uryXCvrTL7/ml42n4d+z5DK3Ky2
 VbJfT4TME3kepU9OACCs4GnSb/9ZGYiv9AxQ32/nV4GTaEY3fr3hzM+CwcM3ICGH6ui1
 LnzB6ifpo6BcIjlwGuAUAugXmFgLDOxxVOdcMxKzJNwXc+UMnqDfG9Dx/U6v/1n0ZLS6
 vnrA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.13.174 with SMTP id i14mr19163241wic.49.1378935543574;
 Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.38.167 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:39:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:39:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+qNgxSVkSi88UC3gmfwigmP0UCO6dz+_Zxhf_=URK7p4c-Ghg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Why do we need to acquire the current thread's lock before context
 switching?
From: Dheeraj Kandula <dkandula@gmail.com>
To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:39:05 -0000

Hey All,

When the current thread is being context switched with a newly selected
thread, why is the current thread's lock acquired before context switch =96
mi_switch() is invoked after thread_lock(td) is called. A thread at any
time runs only on one of the cores of a CPU. Hence when it is being context
switched it is added either to the real time runq or the timeshare runq or
the idle runq with the lock still held or it is added to the sleep queue or
the blocked queue. So this happens atomically even without the lock. Isn't
it? Am I missing something here? I don't see any contention for the thread
in order to demand a lock for the thread which will basically protect the
contents of the thread structure for the thread.

Dheeraj