On Thursday 01 June 2006 00:27, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:23:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> J> Nah, that was phk's other timekeeping code to see which timeouts take a
long
> J> time to execute. The THREAD_NO_SLEEPING() stuff was added just before
6.0
> J> was release
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:23:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
J> Nah, that was phk's other timekeeping code to see which timeouts take a long
J> time to execute. The THREAD_NO_SLEEPING() stuff was added just before 6.0
J> was released and replaced a couple of "special" mutexes that were held jus
On Wednesday 31 May 2006 10:58, Scott Long wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 May 2006 23:01, Scott Long wrote:
> >
> >>Warner Losh wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>imp 2006-05-25 23:06:38 UTC
> >>>
> >>> FreeBSD src repository
> >>>
> >>> Modified files:
> >>>sys/dev/syscons/apm
John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday 25 May 2006 23:01, Scott Long wrote:
Warner Losh wrote:
imp 2006-05-25 23:06:38 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
sys/dev/syscons/apm apm_saver.c
sys/i386/biosapm.c apm.h
Log:
APM was calling the suspend process from a
On Thursday 25 May 2006 23:01, Scott Long wrote:
> Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > imp 2006-05-25 23:06:38 UTC
> >
> > FreeBSD src repository
> >
> > Modified files:
> > sys/dev/syscons/apm apm_saver.c
> > sys/i386/biosapm.c apm.h
> > Log:
> > APM was calling the susp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>At the very least, we should mandate that timeouts are a non-sleepable
>event. Sleeping just doesn't work there. taskqueues, I'm less sure
>of, since short sleeps there work, but do degrade performance. I like
>this idea.
A couple of years b
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Warner Losh wrote this message on Thu, May 25, 2006 at 22:06 -0600:
: > > In the past, I've been against mandating that callouts/timeouts/generic
: > > taskqueues should not be allowed to sleep. However, af
Warner Losh wrote this message on Thu, May 25, 2006 at 22:06 -0600:
> > In the past, I've been against mandating that callouts/timeouts/generic
> > taskqueues should not be allowed to sleep. However, after looking over
> > the history of this problem as well as others, it seems that it's just
> >
From: Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/syscons/apm apm_saver.c src/sys/i386/bios
apm.c apm.h
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 21:01:09 -0600
> Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > imp 2006-05-25 23:06:38 UTC
> >
> > FreeBSD src reposi
Warner Losh wrote:
imp 2006-05-25 23:06:38 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
sys/dev/syscons/apm apm_saver.c
sys/i386/biosapm.c apm.h
Log:
APM was calling the suspend process from a timeout. This meant that
other timeouts could not happen while s
imp 2006-05-25 23:06:38 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
sys/dev/syscons/apm apm_saver.c
sys/i386/biosapm.c apm.h
Log:
APM was calling the suspend process from a timeout. This meant that
other timeouts could not happen while suspending, including ti
11 matches
Mail list logo
