Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 23 Sep 2000 00:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        smp@FreeBSD.org, cp@bsdi.com, alpha@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Status update
Message-ID:  <XFMail.000923003422.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ok, the alpha seems to be rather stable now without the need for obscene hacks
to the mutex code to dink with mtx_saveipl.  To summarize, here are the changes
thus far:

- software interrupts (SWI's) are now MI except for a few constants.  
  Currently we still only have 8 SWI's on the x86 due to old compatability
  nonsense.  We should be able to bump this to 32 like it is on the alpha very
  easily if it proves beneficial.  Also software interrutps are completely
  divorced from the x86 hardware interrupt code.  The softinterrupt thread is
  also now a simple kthread instead of an ithread.
- interrupt threads on the alpha for device I/O interrupts.  Note that two
  bus chipsets (dwlpx and mcpcia) still need a couple of low-level functions to
  handle enable/disable of interrupt sources.
- spl()'s are stubbed out on the alpha.  Actually, they are now stubbed out in
  MI code (kern_intr.c specifically).  As a side effect of the IPL code
  becoming mostly MI now, there is a <sys/ipl.h> that includes <machine/ipl.h>
  and should be used instead.  The individal machine/ipl.h are now quite short
  and simple.
- The interrupt state of the sched_lock is now saved in a process's PCB during
  cpu_switch().  This way, code before and after a call to either mi_switch()
  or cpu_switch() is guaranteed to be run at the same interrupt state.  Without
  this I was having problems on the alpha where the idle loop was running at
  ALPHA_PSL_IPL_SOFT (1) and as a result init's child process was never ran,
  among other things.

This last change is something I'd like some feedback on.  I've checked the
BSD/OS x86 code, and it onyl saves the recursion count of the sched_lock in the
pcb.  However, after the problems with the alpha and some discussion with Peter
Wemm on IRC, I decided that we should be doing this.  However, I'm not
completely certain, and any thoughts that anyone has would be appreciated.

There are also a few more weirdism's on the alpha.  In a few places in
sys/kern, we call spl0() instead of splx().  I've added some debugging code to
do a printf() if we aren't actually at IPL_0 (what spl0 used to do) after the
mtx_exit().  It does trigger in several cases during /etc/rc at least, but the
machine seems to be running stable regardless (I'll be running a buildworld -j
8 tonight to stress test it).  My question is: is it ok for the code to run
with some interrupts disabled or do we need to replace the calls to spl0()
with enable_intr()?
 
I'll be updating my patchset at
http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/alpha.ithreads.patch shortly.  If you have
time, please test this stuff out so we can get it committed.  Thanks.

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.000923003422.jhb>