on 04/04/2013 20:34 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> This seems to work without problems or any warnings with WITNESS &&
> !WITNESS_SKIPSPIN, but it is very possible that I am not exercising all the
> relevant code paths.
>
> P.S. Looking through history it seems that in r169391 intr_table_lock
on 01/04/2013 17:52 John Baldwin said the following:
> Hmm, I think intr_table_lock used to be a spin lock at some point. I don't
> remember
> why we changed it to a regular mutex. It may be that there was a lock order
> reason
> for that. :(
I came up with the following patch:
http://people.f
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:48:50 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> Looks like this issue needs more thinking and discussing.
>
> The basic idea is that suspend_cpus() must be called with smp_ipi_mtx held (on
> SMP systems).
> This is for exactly the same reasons as to why we first take smp_ipi_mtx
>
Looks like this issue needs more thinking and discussing.
The basic idea is that suspend_cpus() must be called with smp_ipi_mtx held (on
SMP systems).
This is for exactly the same reasons as to why we first take smp_ipi_mtx before
calling stop_cpus() in the shutdown path. Essentially one CPU cou
Could you please review and/or test the following patch?
The idea is exactly the same as for cpu_stop() invocation in the shutdown path.
Please note that I've kept intr_disable() just because potentially mtx_lock_spin
could be implemented in such a way that it wouldn't block all interrupts via CP