Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 21:33:11 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "John Baldwin" <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 119371 for review Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10705091233t405121d2qda9a058ecf4124bc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200705091457.39167.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200705062110.l46LAZqE011583@repoman.freebsd.org> <200705091457.39167.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/5/9, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>: > 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. I think he just needs msr of the cpu where curthread is executed, so any scheduler lock should be needed. If he needs to know msr of a particular CPU he really needs so, but it doesn't seem the case. 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?3bbf2fe10705091233t405121d2qda9a058ecf4124bc>