Date: 12 Jun 1999 10:51:11 -0700 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@home.com> To: "Christopher R. Bowman" <crb@ChrisBowman.com> Cc: "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: High syscall overhead? Message-ID: <m3yahpe29c.fsf@c62443-a.frmt1.sfba.home.com> In-Reply-To: "Christopher R. Bowman"'s message of "Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:37:50 -0400" References: <"David E. Cross"'s message of "Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:40:37 -0400"> <199906111440.KAA70517@cs.rpi.edu> <199906121040.FAA04934@quark.ChrisBowman.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Christopher R. Bowman" <crb@ChrisBowman.com> writes: > > I can't speak authoritatively since I don't know specifically what > SYSCALL_LOCK is, but if it is what is often referred to on this list > as the Giant Kernel Lock(tm) then the following should generally > apply. > You're right. The SYSCALL_LOCK is the same as the giant lock. The name kinda misled me to assume that it's a different lock. i386/i386/lock.h: /* * Some handy macros to allow logical organization and * convenient reassignment of various locks. */ #define FPU_LOCK call _get_fpu_lock #define ALIGN_LOCK call _get_align_lock #define SYSCALL_LOCK call _get_syscall_lock #define ALTSYSCALL_LOCK call _get_altsyscall_lock All of the above routines seem to be identical. But the code is duplicated for some reason. Also, it might be beneficial to define these locks in a header file and inline them, instead of generating a call for each simple_lock. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3yahpe29c.fsf>