Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:19:07 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 63396 for review Message-ID: <417592DB.6050609@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200410192159.i9JLxNLE003024@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200410192159.i9JLxNLE003024@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: >http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=63396 > >Change 63396 by jhb@jhb_tibook on 2004/10/19 21:58:24 > > Update. > >Affected files ... > >.. //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#21 edit > >Differences ... > >==== //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#21 (text+ko) ==== > >@@ -33,6 +33,10 @@ > - Untested > - Don't allow kthreads to get signalled and do bad things > - Untested >+- Change amd64 to use [ls]fence instructions for memory barriers. >+ - Untested (and no hardware, maybe peter can test) >+- Turn off the ipiwakeups in 4BSD since the currently implementation can >+ lead to IPI deadlocks > the implementation of IPIs or the implementation of IPIwakeup? > - Add a kproc API that does what kthread does right now > - Add a real kthread API that creates just another thread inside of a kproc > - Figure out what needs to be done to make a new kthread.. should each > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417592DB.6050609>