From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4C124E2C.7010008@bouyapop.org> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:54:36 +0200 From: Philippe Anel User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100318) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> References: <4C1242CD.5020202@bouyapop.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] 9vx, kproc and *double sleep* Topicbox-Message-UUID: 315d7aea-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I don't think either splhi fixes the problem ... it only hides it for the 99.999999999% cases. Phil; erik quanstrom wrote: >> schedinit only runs once and sleep runs all the time. That's the part >> I don't get. >> > > gotolabel in sleep sends you back to the > setlabel at the top of schedinit. > > >> But you might have found something, I sure wish I understood it all better :-) >> > > i'm not entirely convinced that the problem isn't the fact that splhi() > doesn't do anything. > > here's what i wonder: > - does richard miller's alternate implementation of wakeup > solve this problem. > - does changing spl* to manipulation of a per-cpu lock solve the problem? > sometimes preventing anything else from running on your mach is > exactly what you want. > > in any event, given the long history with sleep/wakeup, changes should > be justified with a promula model. the current model omits the spl* > and the second lock. (http://swtch.com/spin/sleep_wakeup.txt). > > - erik > > >