Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m3yahpe29c.fsf>