Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 09:17:48 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, scottl@samsco.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/syscons/apm apm_saver.c src/sys/i386/bios apm.c apm.h Message-ID: <7545.1148627868@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 May 2006 22:06:11 MDT." <20060525.220611.74708877.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20060525.220611.74708877.imp@bsdimp.com>, Warner Losh writes: >At the very least, we should mandate that timeouts are a non-sleepable >event. Sleeping just doesn't work there. taskqueues, I'm less sure >of, since short sleeps there work, but do degrade performance. I like >this idea. A couple of years back I did a survey of our timeout callbacks because I was worried about this issue in the context of SMPng. The majority are "mostly OK" (there is a lot of memory allocations with M_WAITOK) and a few are just plain wrong. It's certainly a fixable problem. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7545.1148627868>