Re: low-priority xcall(9)s and preemption

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost> wrote:
> I take that last sentence to mean that a low-priority cross call *may*
> preempt a thread on the remote CPU.  Is that correct?
> 
> In other words, can we rephrase that, "A low-priority cross call may
> preempt a thread running on the remote CPU unless preemption is disabled
> on that CPU."

Of course.  This is not specific to xcall(9), though.  Any thread *may*
preempt a currently running thread, if it has a higher priority, kernel
preemption is not disabled and the port has kernel preemption support.

-- 
Mindaugas