Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 14:37:45 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "Expensive timeout(9) function..." Message-ID: <32984.1049200665@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:33:19 %2B0400." <20030401123319.GA8399@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32984.1049200665>