Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:59:32 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Orit Moskovich <oritm@mellanox.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD spinlock - compatibility layer Message-ID: <201305220859.32948.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D39EF@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> References: <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0CFD79@MTLDAG01.mtl.com> <201305211220.16776.jhb@freebsd.org> <981733489AB3BD4DB24B48340F53E0A55B0D39EF@MTLDAG01.mtl.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:14:51 am Orit Moskovich wrote: > From what I've read in "FreeBSD - device drivers" book by Joseph Kong on interrupt handling, you cannot voluntarily context switch (that is, sleep) in interrupt threads . That is not the same thing. By sleep it means call a *sleep() function or wait on a cond var. Not block on a mutex or rwlock. > In any case, I think that the functionality of spin mutex should remain as is, and not modified to sleep mutex, as it can be used in places that sleep mustn't be used, or that require the properties of the spin due to performance considerations. No, spin locks are _slower_ and reduce performance. FreeBSD is much more like Solaris in this regard. Spin mutexes on FreeBSD are similar to dispatcher locks in Solaris which 99% of the kernel should never use. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201305220859.32948.jhb>