Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Aug 22, 2012
  2. Sep 14, 2011
  3. Sep 13, 2011
  4. Sep 01, 2011
  5. Aug 30, 2011
  6. Aug 29, 2011
  7. Aug 22, 2011
  8. Aug 15, 2011
  9. Aug 12, 2011
  10. Aug 11, 2011
  11. Aug 09, 2011
  12. Jul 29, 2011
  13. Jul 27, 2011
  14. Feb 19, 2011
  15. Jan 11, 2011
    • Russ Cox's avatar
      make new code like old code · 1a81e38b
      Russ Cox authored
      Variable declarations at top of function,
      separate from initialization.
      
      Use == 0 instead of ! for checking pointers.
      
      Consistent spacing around {, *, casts.
      
      Declare 0-parameter functions as (void) not ().
      
      Integer valued functions return -1 on failure, 0 on success.
      1a81e38b
  16. Sep 13, 2010
  17. Aug 31, 2010
  18. Aug 30, 2010
  19. Aug 05, 2010
  20. Jul 23, 2010
  21. Jul 02, 2010
  22. Sep 02, 2009
  23. Aug 30, 2009
    • Russ Cox's avatar
      assorted fixes: · 48755214
      Russ Cox authored
       * rename c/cp to cpu/proc
       * rename cpu.context to cpu.scheduler
       * fix some comments
       * formatting for printout
      48755214
  24. May 30, 2009
    • rsc's avatar
      · 19333efb
      rsc authored
      Some proc cleanup, moving some of copyproc into allocproc.
      
      Also, an experiment: use "thread-local" storage for c and cp
      instead of the #define macro for curproc[cpu()].
      19333efb
  25. Mar 08, 2009
  26. Aug 21, 2008
  27. Oct 01, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      · 943fd378
      rsc authored
      Incorporate new understanding of/with Intel SMP spec.
      
      Dropped cmpxchg in favor of xchg, to match lecture notes.
      
      Use xchg to release lock, for future protection and to
      keep gcc from acting clever.
      943fd378
  28. Sep 30, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      · 9fd9f804
      rsc authored
      Re: why cpuid() in locking code?
      
      rtm wrote:
      > Why does acquire() call cpuid()? Why does release() call cpuid()?
      
      The cpuid in acquire is redundant with the cmpxchg, as you said.
      I have removed the cpuid from acquire.
      
      The cpuid in release is actually doing something important,
      but not on the hardware.  It keeps gcc from reordering the
      lock->locked assignment above the other two during optimization.
      (Not that current gcc -O2 would choose to do that, but it is allowed to.)
      I have replaced the cpuid in release with a "gcc barrier" that
      keeps gcc from moving things around but has no hardware effect.
      
      On a related note, I don't think the cpuid in mpmain is necessary,
      for the same reason that the cpuid wasn't needed in release.
      
      As to the question of whether
      
        acquire();
        x = protected;
        release();
      
      might read protected after release(), I still haven't convinced
      myself whether it can.  I'll put the cpuid back into release if
      we determine that it can.
      
      Russ
      9fd9f804
  29. Sep 27, 2007
    • rsc's avatar
      · ab08960f
      rsc authored
      Final word on the locking fiasco?
      
      Change pushcli / popcli so that they can never turn on
      interrupts unexpectedly.  That is, if interrupts are on,
      then pushcli(); popcli(); turns them off and back on, but
      if they are off to begin with, then pushcli(); popcli(); is
      a no-op.
      
      I think our fundamental mistake was having a primitive
      (release and then popcli nee spllo) that could turn
      interrupts on at unexpected moments instead of being
      explicit about when we want to start allowing interrupts.
      
      With the new semantics, all the manual fiddling of ncli
      to force interrupts off in certain sections goes away.
      In return, we must explicitly mark the places where
      we want to enable interrupts unconditionally, by calling sti().
      There is only one: inside the scheduler loop.
      ab08960f
    • rsc's avatar
      yank out stack overflow checking ugliness · c95bde81
      rsc authored
      c95bde81
    • rsc's avatar
      okay, that was long enough - revert · 4f74de0e
      rsc authored
      4f74de0e
Loading