Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:20:45 -0500 (EST)
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG>, Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, "Jeroen C.van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org>
Subject:   Re: Patch for critical_enter()/critical_exit() & interrupt assem
Message-ID:  <XFMail.020307172045.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200203070318.g273IBB60433@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 07-Mar-02 Matthew Dillon wrote:
> 
>:Search for "paper John Baldwin" and find link 6:
>:  
>:http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=199282+204026+/usr/local/www/db/
>:text/2002/freebsd-arch/20020303.freebsd-arch
>:
>:The actual paper is at:
>:  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/smpng/design/article.{ps,pdf}
>:
>:-J
>:--
>:Jeroen C. van Gelderen - jeroen@vangelderen.org
> 
>     Ok... I've read it.  The sections on interrupts and critical sections
>     are fully compatible with my patch.  The one section... basically
>     the last sentence of the last paragraph, is exactly the piece that
>     my patch cleans up and makes more flexible.  Instead of requiring that
>     cpu_critical_*() always be used for the initial critical_enter() my
>     patch makes it optional, and for I386 I use that flexibility to allow
>     critical_*() to NOT have to call cpu_critical_*().

You seemed to have missed the entire part where we handle deferred preemptions
in MI code in critical_exit().  The critical_enter/exit stuff really exists to
support the preemption code and to get rid of the various FOO_NOSWITCH flags. 
I think it is ok to remove the linkage between critical_enter/exit and
cpu_critical_* (possibly even renaming cpu_critical_* to a better name) and to
allow arch's to optimize cpu_critical_* but leave critical_* as MI code. 
That's what I've asked for from the start and Jake even suggested it from the
start.

I'm still not comfortable with the optimiation, but changing the MI critical_*
code is by far my biggest objection to the code.

>                                       -Matt
>                                       Matthew Dillon 
>                                       <dillon@backplane.com>

-- 

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-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020307172045.jhb>