Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:51:15 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: amd64 cpu_switch in C. Message-ID: <47D9BDF3.80409@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20080313132152.Y1091@desktop> References: <20080310161115.X1091@desktop> <47D758AC.2020605@freebsd.org> <e7db6d980803120125y41926333hb2724ecd07c0ac92@mail.gmail.com> <20080313124213.J31200@delplex.bde.org> <20080312211834.T1091@desktop> <20080313230809.W32527@delplex.bde.org> <20080313132152.Y1091@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > I'm not sure why you feel masking interrupts in spinlocks is bogus. > It's central to our SMP strategy. Unless you think we should do it > lazily like we do with critical_*. I know jhb had that working at one > point but it was abandoned. > > My memory is that we used to mask interrupts lazily in 4.x
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47D9BDF3.80409>