On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 02:20:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:06:51PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
> >> Does anyone know if it is only curthread that needs to be atomic? If so
> >> this should work. Re
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:06:51PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
>> Does anyone know if it is only curthread that needs to be atomic? If so
>> this should work. Reading the cpuid from the system currently is a
>> single instruction, howev
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 04:26:14PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 7:47:47 am Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:09:20PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:43:49 -0500
> > > John Baldwin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thursday, February
On Monday, February 25, 2013 7:47:47 am Olivier Houchard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:09:20PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:43:49 -0500
> > John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:53:52 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 a
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:06:51PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
> Does anyone know if it is only curthread that needs to be atomic? If so
> this should work. Reading the cpuid from the system currently is a
> single instruction, however it appears the code will need to be reworked
> for use with mul
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:47:47 +0100
Olivier Houchard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:09:20PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:43:49 -0500
> > John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:53:52 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 07:09:20PM +1300, Andrew Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:43:49 -0500
> John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:53:52 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, John Baldwin
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 20, 201
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:43:49 -0500
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:53:52 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, John Baldwin
> > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, K
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > curthread is a bit magic. :) If you perform a context switch during an
>> > interrupt (which will change 'curthread') you also change your register
>> > state.
>> > When you resume, the register state is also restored. This means that
>
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:53:52 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, K
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 14:32 -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:27:39 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:27:39 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 18
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:22:29AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 a
On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:31:08 am Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> >> wrote:
> >> Well, I'm taking a part
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Konstantin Belousov
>> wrote:
>> Well, I'm taking a part on porting FreeBSD to ARM11mpcore. UP case was
>> simple. SMP case is more co
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:18:16PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> Well, I'm taking a part on porting FreeBSD to ARM11mpcore. UP case was
> simple. SMP case is more complex and rather new for me. Recently, I
> was solving a problem wi
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:27:40PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Konstantin Belousov
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:08
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 09:27:40PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 a
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:44:35PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>the acces
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:44:35PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>the access to sysmaps_pcpu[] should be atomic with respect to
>> thread migration. Otherwise, a sysmaps for one CPU can be stolen by
>> another CPU and the
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Konstantin Belousov
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:44:35PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>the access to sysmaps_pcpu[] should be atomic with respect to
> >> thread migr
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:44:35PM +0100, Svatopluk Kraus wrote:
> Hi,
>
>the access to sysmaps_pcpu[] should be atomic with respect to
> thread migration. Otherwise, a sysmaps for one CPU can be stolen by
> another CPU and the purpose of per CPU sysmaps is broken. A patch is
> enclosed.
And,
Hi,
the access to sysmaps_pcpu[] should be atomic with respect to
thread migration. Otherwise, a sysmaps for one CPU can be stolen by
another CPU and the purpose of per CPU sysmaps is broken. A patch is
enclosed.
Svata
Index: sys/i386/i386/pmap.c
=
24 matches
Mail list logo