Subject: Re: splx() optimization [was Re: SMP re-eetrancy in "bottom half" drivers]
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@shagadelic.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/07/2005 17:46:33
On Jun 7, 2005, at 3:55 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> while i completely agree that the only sane way is "highest IPL
> first",
> lock-per-IPL implies that no interrupt handlers take kernel_lock, i
> guess.
> i think it can work if we don't care about performace.
I don't want lock-per-IPL.
What I want is "make the subsystems that run in those IPLs truly SMP-
safe". That way we get actual performance.
-- thorpej