In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Matthew Dillon writes:
: Here's the basic problem: The kernel is currently designed for
: single-threaded operation plus interrupt handling. A piece of code
: in the kernel can temporarily disable certain interrupts with the
: spl*() codes to cover
In message <199906270733.aaa10...@apollo.backplane.com> Matthew Dillon writes:
: Here's the basic problem: The kernel is currently designed for
: single-threaded operation plus interrupt handling. A piece of code
: in the kernel can temporarily disable certain interrupts with the
:
Here's the basic problem: The kernel is currently designed for
single-threaded operation plus interrupt handling. A piece of code
in the kernel can temporarily disable certain interrupts with the
spl*() codes to cover situations where a race on some system resource
might occ
Here's the basic problem: The kernel is currently designed for
single-threaded operation plus interrupt handling. A piece of code
in the kernel can temporarily disable certain interrupts with the
spl*() codes to cover situations where a race on some system resource
might occu
Jesus Monroy wrote:
>
> Ville-Pertti Keinonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike O'Dell) writes:
> > > we published the best Unix SMP paper I've ever seen in Computing
> > > Systems - from the Amdahl guys who did an SMP version of the kernel
> > > by very clever hacks on SPLx(
Jesus Monroy wrote:
>
> Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
> > m...@servo.ccr.org (Mike O'Dell) writes:
> > > we published the best Unix SMP paper I've ever seen in Computing
> > > Systems - from the Amdahl guys who did an SMP version of the kernel
> > > by very clever hacks on SPLx() macros to make th
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> The part I'm lost on is "can change things from under it".
> From under what? I assume the statement means "it" as being
> the code or driver. So the question begs, what things can
> change?
The assumption that changes is that your code ass
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> The part I'm lost on is "can change things from under it".
> From under what? I assume the statement means "it" as being
> the code or driver. So the question begs, what things can
> change?
The assumption that changes is that your code assu
"Daniel J. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> > > An approach like that can't possibly be sufficient if code has been
> > > written with the assumption that only interrupt-like events or
> > > blocking calls can change things from under it. There is quite
>
"Daniel J. O'Connor" wrote:
> On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> > > An approach like that can't possibly be sufficient if code has been
> > > written with the assumption that only interrupt-like events or
> > > blocking calls can change things from under it. There is quite
> > > a bit of code i
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> > An approach like that can't possibly be sufficient if code has been
> > written with the assumption that only interrupt-like events or
> > blocking calls can change things from under it. There is quite a bit
> > of code in FreeBSD that relies on this.
> C
On 26-Jun-99 Jesus Monroy wrote:
> > An approach like that can't possibly be sufficient if code has been
> > written with the assumption that only interrupt-like events or
> > blocking calls can change things from under it. There is quite a bit
> > of code in FreeBSD that relies on this.
> Ca
Ville-Pertti Keinonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike O'Dell) writes:
> > we published the best Unix SMP paper I've ever seen in Computing
> > Systems - from the Amdahl guys who did an SMP version of the kernel
> > by very clever hacks on SPLx() macros to make them spin locks
Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
> m...@servo.ccr.org (Mike O'Dell) writes:
> > we published the best Unix SMP paper I've ever seen in Computing
> > Systems - from the Amdahl guys who did an SMP version of the kernel
> > by very clever hacks on SPLx() macros to make them spin locks and
> > a bit of ot
14 matches
Mail list logo
