Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!taurus!gate.ready.com!gate.ready.com!buz
From: buz@ready.com (Greg Buzzard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: interrupt and simple_locks
Message-ID: <1991Apr4.225931.20534@ready.eng.ready.com>
Date: 4 Apr 91 22:59:31 GMT
References: <1991Apr3.184610.12580@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <4799@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <1991Apr4.035548.25439@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <4813@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>
Sender: buz@ready.eng.ready.com (Greg Buzzard)
Reply-To: buz@ready.com (Greg Buzzard)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Ready Systems
Lines: 24


In article <4813@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, dswartz@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
|> In article <1991Apr4.035548.25439@m.cs.uiuc.edu> rchen@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Rong Chen) writes:
|> ...
|> Just out of curiosity, how do you suggest that the interrupt handler
|> "change the volatile structure" in kernel space in a multiprocessor
|> environment when there are other threads of control trying to do the
|> same thing?

Certainly one possibility is to not expect the interrupt level code to
"change the volatile structure" -- it could queue a request for a
non-interrupt thread to do it.  If there is a synchronization
"problem" the onus ought to be on the non-interrupt threads to "do the
right thing"
-- 
Greg Buzzard, Ph.D. 			internet:  buz@eng.ready.com
Ready Systems
470 Potrero Ave.			phone:     408/736-2600
Sunnyvale, CA  94086
-- 
Greg Buzzard	 			internet:  buz@eng.ready.com
Ready Systems
470 Potrero Ave.			phone:     408/736-2600
Sunnyvale, CA  94086