Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:57:38 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 119371 for review Message-ID: <200705091457.39167.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200705062110.l46LAZqE011583@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200705062110.l46LAZqE011583@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 06 May 2007 05:10:35 pm Rui Paulo wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=119371 > > Change 119371 by rpaulo@rpaulo_epsilon on 2007/05/06 21:10:15 > > We don't need any scheduler support because: > 1) msrtemp is a child of cpu - this implies that every > rdmsr/cpuid instruction will be executed on that CPU. No, that isn't true. You do need to use sched_bind() for that so you are really on the desired CPU when you read the MSR. > 2) rdmsr/cpuid are atomic, so I don't need to worry about > any threads interfering. This is true. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705091457.39167.jhb>