Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:25:45 +0200 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r211176 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 i386/i386 Message-ID: <AANLkTimczmkAkqTnCDmHh1otsX1OuVggeEA8NkpY3bYO@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C62DADF.1000202@FreeBSD.org> References: <201008111051.o7BApRp4028538@svn.freebsd.org> <4C62DADF.1000202@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/8/11 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>: > Attilio Rao wrote: >> >> Author: attilio >> Date: Wed Aug 11 10:51:27 2010 >> New Revision: 211176 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/211176 >> >> Log: >> IPI handlers may run generally with interrupts disabled because they >> are served via an interrupt gate. >> However, that doesn't explicitly prevent preemption and thread >> migration thus scheduler pinning may be necessary in some handlers. >> Fix that. >> Tested by: gianni >> MFC after: 1 month > > Actually that does prevent preemption if you do not call any code that would > schedule a thread. I think this change is all safe to revert. Do you recall, then, why lapic_handle_timer() does critical section? It seems to be catered by interrupt gate as well, and I don't see any point re-enabling them explicitly. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimczmkAkqTnCDmHh1otsX1OuVggeEA8NkpY3bYO>