From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Oct 19 14:21:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C762237B401; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12778; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:21:14 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011018232356.04601a40@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:26:03 -0600 To: John Baldwin From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Breaking news: FreeBSD is "considering implementing a preemp Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Dag-Erling Smorgrav In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011017120858.046a58a0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 11:13 PM 10/16/2001, John Baldwin wrote: >The only remaining trick is >to not preempt during critical sections which are already marked by our >critical_enter/exit API. That's the hardest part: recognizing, in existing code, what's a critical section. It may be non-obvious what will leave the kernel data structures inconsistent in some subtle way -- especially if it involves data values that should not be present at the same time rather than dangling pointers. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message