In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yar Tikhiy writes: >Hello, > >I'm getting the following DIAGNOSTIC messages on my -CURRENT box: > > Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc02677e0(0) 0.006095064 s > >(it's uma_timeout(), which triggers the warning once per boot) > > Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.006581587 s > Expensive timeout(9) function: 0xc0141610(0xc0dfcc00) 0.008510173 s > >(and this one is fxp_tick(); it triggers the warning from time to time) > >Are those warnings harmless?
Yes, but indicative of code which needs attention, but harmless. >As far as my understanding of the issue reaches, a timeout function >is called under protection of the Giant mutex unless it's marked >as MP-safe, and that's the reason to spend as little time as possible >in it. Right? Yes, but there are other reasons why you would generally not want to spend too much time in the timeout function, mostly that it may screw up other time-critical things in the system. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
