Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      12 Jun 1999 10:51:11 -0700
From:      Arun Sharma <>
To:        "Christopher R. Bowman" <>
Cc:        "David E. Cross" <>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: High syscall overhead?
Message-ID:  <>
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">  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
"Christopher R. Bowman" <> 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.


 * 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.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>