Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:18:37 +0000 From: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch to optimize "bare" critical sections Message-ID: <41A3B73D.4080806@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9C77F94E-3DC8-11D9-A2B1-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net> References: <200411231500.55841.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200411231631.00945.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <9C77F94E-3DC8-11D9-A2B1-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2004, at 1:31 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > >> On Tuesday 23 November 2004 03:00 pm, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>> Basically, I have a patch to divorce the interrupt disable/deferring to >>> only happen inside of spinlocks using a new spinlock_enter/exit() API >>> (where a spinlock_enter/exit includes a critical section as well) >>> but that >>> plain critical sections won't have to do such a thing. I've tested >>> it on >>> i386, alpha, and sparc64 already, and it has also been tested on >>> arm. I'm >>> unable to get a cross-built powerpc kernel to link (linker dies with a >>> signal 6), but the compile did finish. I have cross-compiled ia64 and >>> amd64 >>> successfully, but have not run tested due to ENOHARDWARE. So, I would >>> appreciate it if a few folks could try the patch out on ppc, ia64, and >>> amd64 to make sure it works ok. Thanks. >>> >>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/spinlock.patch >> >> >> *cough* Ahem, http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/spinlock.patch >> >> Sorry about that. > > > The patch doesn't apply cleanly. Can you create a patch against HEAD > and not your lock branch? > > Rejects are: > > Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... > The text leading up to this was: > -------------------------- > |--- //depot/projects/smpng/sys/kern/kern_mutex.c 2004/11/15 > 20:20:33 > |+++ //depot/user/jhb/lock/kern/kern_mutex.c 2004/11/17 16:42:34 > -------------------------- > Patching file sys/kern/kern_mutex.c using Plan A... > Hunk #1 failed at 602. > Hunk #2 failed at 630. > 2 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/kern/kern_mutex.c.rej > Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... > The text leading up to this was: > -------------------------- > |--- //depot/projects/smpng/sys/sys/mutex.h 2004/08/18 16:47:14 > |+++ //depot/user/jhb/lock/sys/mutex.h 2004/11/04 23:48:43 > -------------------------- > Patching file sys/sys/mutex.h using Plan A... > Hunk #1 succeeded at 164 (offset -3 lines). > Hunk #2 failed at 176. > Hunk #3 succeeded at 194 (offset -11 lines). > Hunk #4 succeeded at 212 with fuzz 2 (offset -4 lines). > Hunk #5 failed at 220. > 2 out of 5 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/sys/mutex.h.rej > It does not compile. Complains out redundant declarations of spinlock_enter and spinlock_exit, for me on amd64. I applied the patch by hand, so it could be a mistake on my end. Doesn't appear to be though. This was with 5.3-STABLE. --- Harrison Grundy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41A3B73D.4080806>