Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:54:40 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: dtrace/cyclic deadlock Message-ID: <4CEFBC20.3090407@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4CEBC11F.9000402@freebsd.org> References: <4CEB6039.2040700@freebsd.org> <4CEBC11F.9000402@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 23/11/2010 15:26 Andriy Gapon said the following: > on 23/11/2010 08:33 Andriy Gapon said the following: >> I think that this is quite similar to what we do for per-CPU caches in UMA and >> so the same approach should work here. >> That is, as in (Open)Solaris, the data should be accessed only from the owning >> CPU and spinlock_enter()/spinlock_exit() should be used to prevent races between >> non-interrupt code and nested interrupt code. > > Here's a patch that makes our version of cyclic.c a little bit closer to the > upstream version whilst implementing the above idea: > http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/cyclic-deadlock.diff > > All accesses to per-CPU cyclics data are performed strictly from the corresponding > CPUs in an interrupt or interrupt-like context. "Upcalls" occur in event timer's > interrupt filter and all down calls are performed via smp_rendezvous_cpus(). > > I will appreciate reviews and testing. Should I wait for any pending comments? Otherwise I am confident enough in the patch to commit it. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CEFBC20.3090407>