Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 15 May 2011 10:12:48 +0300
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Grehan <grehan@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: proposed smp_rendezvous change
Message-ID:  <4DCF7CF0.1080508@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <4DCE9EF0.3050803@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4DCD357D.6000109@FreeBSD.org> <4DCE9EF0.3050803@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 14/05/2011 18:25 John Baldwin said the following:
> Hmmm, so this is not actually sufficient.  NetApp ran into a very similar race
> with virtual CPUs in BHyVe.  In their case because virtual CPUs are threads that
> can be preempted, they have a chance at a longer race.
> 
> The problem that they see is that even though the values have been updated, the
> next CPU to start a rendezvous can clear smp_rv_waiters[2] to zero before one of
> the other CPUs notices that it has finished.

As a follow up to my previous question.  Have you noticed that in my patch no
slave CPU actually waits/spins on smp_rv_waiters[2]?  It's always only master
CPU (and under smp_ipi_mtx).

-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DCF7CF0.1080508>