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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
