From owner-freebsd-ia64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 24 03:26:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8502616A4CE; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:26:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB06943D58; Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:26:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from [192.168.4.250] (dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.250]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iAO3QLDX020560; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:26:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) In-Reply-To: <200411231631.00945.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200411231500.55841.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200411231631.00945.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <9C77F94E-3DC8-11D9-A2B1-000D93C47836@xcllnt.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Marcel Moolenaar Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:26:21 -0800 To: John Baldwin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) cc: amd64@freebsd.org cc: powerpc@freebsd.org cc: ia64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch to optimize "bare" critical sections X-BeenThere: freebsd-ia64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the IA-64 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:26:22 -0000 On Nov 23, 2004, at 1:31 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 23 November 2004 03:00 pm, John Baldwin wrote: >> Basically, I have a patch to divorce the interrupt disable/deferring >> to >> only happen inside of spinlocks using a new spinlock_enter/exit() API >> (where a spinlock_enter/exit includes a critical section as well) but >> that >> plain critical sections won't have to do such a thing. I've tested >> it on >> i386, alpha, and sparc64 already, and it has also been tested on arm. >> I'm >> unable to get a cross-built powerpc kernel to link (linker dies with a >> signal 6), but the compile did finish. I have cross-compiled ia64 and >> amd64 >> successfully, but have not run tested due to ENOHARDWARE. So, I would >> appreciate it if a few folks could try the patch out on ppc, ia64, and >> amd64 to make sure it works ok. Thanks. >> >> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/spinlock.patch > > *cough* Ahem, http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/patches/spinlock.patch > > Sorry about that. The patch doesn't apply cleanly. Can you create a patch against HEAD and not your lock branch? Rejects are: Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- //depot/projects/smpng/sys/kern/kern_mutex.c 2004/11/15 20:20:33 |+++ //depot/user/jhb/lock/kern/kern_mutex.c 2004/11/17 16:42:34 -------------------------- Patching file sys/kern/kern_mutex.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 failed at 602. Hunk #2 failed at 630. 2 out of 2 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/kern/kern_mutex.c.rej Hmm... The next patch looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- //depot/projects/smpng/sys/sys/mutex.h 2004/08/18 16:47:14 |+++ //depot/user/jhb/lock/sys/mutex.h 2004/11/04 23:48:43 -------------------------- Patching file sys/sys/mutex.h using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 164 (offset -3 lines). Hunk #2 failed at 176. Hunk #3 succeeded at 194 (offset -11 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 212 with fuzz 2 (offset -4 lines). Hunk #5 failed at 220. 2 out of 5 hunks failed--saving rejects to sys/sys/mutex.h.rej -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net