Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 17:16:16 +0400 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Expensive timeout(9) function..." Message-ID: <20030401131616.GA11282@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <32984.1049200665@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20030401123319.GA8399@comp.chem.msu.su> <32984.1049200665@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 02:37:45PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20030401123319.GA8399@comp.chem.msu.su>, Yar Tikhiy writes: > >Hello, > > > >I'm getting the following DIAGNOSTIC messages on my -CURRENT box: > > > > Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc02677e0(0) 0.006095064 s > > > >(it's uma_timeout(), which triggers the warning once per boot) > > > > Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.006581587 s > > Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.008510173 s > > > >(and this one is fxp_tick(); it triggers the warning from time to time) > > > >Are those warnings harmless? > > Yes, but indicative of code which needs attention, but harmless. > > >As far as my understanding of the issue reaches, a timeout function > >is called under protection of the Giant mutex unless it's marked > >as MP-safe, and that's the reason to spend as little time as possible > >in it. Right? > > Yes, but there are other reasons why you would generally not want > to spend too much time in the timeout function, mostly that it may > screw up other time-critical things in the system. Thanks for your explanation! I hope this little thread will draw the attention of the responsible or interested parties to the warnings ;-) -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030401131616.GA11282>