Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:21:51 GMT From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 68352 for review Message-ID: <200501052221.j05MLp4a043861@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=68352 Change 68352 by jhb@jhb_slimer on 2005/01/05 22:21:05 Committed. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#28 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#28 (text+ko) ==== @@ -47,9 +47,6 @@ buys is being able to swi_sched() from a fast handler, but that doesn't make sense because you can't actually enqueue a task onto its queue from a fast interrupt context -- Optimize spin locks on UP such that they don't do atomic operations - - Untested - - Unbenchmarked - Try to fix problems with stuck IPIs by raising TPR and enabling interrupts in spin loops. Need to perhaps generalize this so that critical sections do this. That really needs to only be done in spinlock_*() (and maybe some
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501052221.j05MLp4a043861>