svn commit: r211176 - in head/sys: amd64/amd64 i386/i386
kostikbel at gmail.com
Wed Aug 11 12:34:33 UTC 2010
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:21:46PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/8/11 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:51:27AM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> Author: attilio
> >> Date: Wed Aug 11 10:51:27 2010
> >> New Revision: 211176
> >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/211176
> >> Log:
> >> IPI handlers may run generally with interrupts disabled because they
> >> are served via an interrupt gate.
> >> However, that doesn't explicitly prevent preemption and thread
> >> migration thus scheduler pinning may be necessary in some handlers.
> >> Fix that.
> > How the preemption is supposed to happen ? Aside from the explicit
> > calls to mi_switch() from e.g. critical_exit().
> IIRC it should be hardclock() willing to schedule the softclock(). It
> is the critical_exit() in the thread_unlock() that may trigger it
> (sorry for not digging more, it was a while back that I hacked this
> part, but I guess you can verify on your own).
> We already have other points within the kernel that take care of
> dealing with preemption/migration like lapic_handle_timer(), for
Right, and if the interrupts are indeed disabled, I do not see how
the preemption may be triggered in the fragments like
cpu = PCPU_GET(cpuid);
cpumask = PCPU_GET(cpumask);
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20100811/4f4573b6/attachment.pgp
More information about the svn-src-all