on 16/05/2011 21:21 John Baldwin said the following:
> How about this:
...
> /*
> * Shared mutex to restrict busywaits between smp_rendezvous() and
> @@ -311,39 +312,62 @@ restart_cpus(cpumask_t map)
> void
> smp_rendezvous_action(void)
> {
> - void* local_func_arg = smp_rv_func_arg;
> - void (*local_setup_func)(void*) = smp_rv_setup_func;
> - void (*local_action_func)(void*) = smp_rv_action_func;
> - void (*local_teardown_func)(void*) = smp_rv_teardown_func;
> + void *local_func_arg;
> + void (*local_setup_func)(void*);
> + void (*local_action_func)(void*);
> + void (*local_teardown_func)(void*);
> + int generation;
>
> /* Ensure we have up-to-date values. */
> atomic_add_acq_int(&smp_rv_waiters[0], 1);
> while (smp_rv_waiters[0] < smp_rv_ncpus)
> cpu_spinwait();
>
> - /* setup function */
> + /* Fetch rendezvous parameters after acquire barrier. */
> + local_func_arg = smp_rv_func_arg;
> + local_setup_func = smp_rv_setup_func;
> + local_action_func = smp_rv_action_func;
> + local_teardown_func = smp_rv_teardown_func;
I want to ask once again - please pretty please convince me that the above
cpu_spinwait() loop is really needed and, by extension, that the assignments
should be moved behind it.
Please :)
--
Andriy Gapon
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
