Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:18:14 -0700 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Neel Natu <neelnatu@gmail.com> Cc: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>, freebsd-mips@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Merging 64 bit changes to -HEAD - part 2 Message-ID: <AANLkTil9mqyeWkSUzasZqwfZL4hmeIq-29FXVddc4Q33@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimFjAoXuA-QDwXAOJ0mXK0okIME9SF3841T49zj@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100617.100235.195066307596264499.imp@bsdimp.com> <AANLkTimkF47RlysFOrma0YhWNDw2w5Lcp9SB1bBoPuxW@mail.gmail.com> <4B66E1A4-E2A5-471F-9FA4-38B506797272@lakerest.net> <20100617.110504.200754750200158040.imp@bsdimp.com> <763BEBBB-B85A-44CE-BFEE-0BADEFF3C185@lakerest.net> <AANLkTikpOaSmTYVfqavtz8T4vZoHWc2CtXIy4SbLlGje@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimFjAoXuA-QDwXAOJ0mXK0okIME9SF3841T49zj@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:41, Neel Natu <neelnatu@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi JC, > > But what you really want here is to eliminate the intr_disable() and > intr_restore() and keep sched_pin() and =A0sched_unpin(). Are you sure? I'm not. By disabling interrupts we only have to ensure that the fault path on any address we might access within those routines doesn't need to use the large memory map. This isn't trivial, but I think we can acquire a reasonable confidence about it. If we merely pin, we have to ensure that nothing else that can run (including interrupts and threads that run via preemption) that would access the large memory map =97 given that this includes routines like pmap_zero_page, I think there's good reason for caution. Disabling interrupts is more conservative, but I think rightly-so. I may be mistaken. Thanks, Juli.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTil9mqyeWkSUzasZqwfZL4hmeIq-29FXVddc4Q33>