Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd)

From: John Baldwin (jhb_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 01/06/05

  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: pci powerstate related: aac(4) broken on Perc 3/Di on -CURRENT" 
    To: Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:52:28 -0500

    On Thursday 06 January 2005 05:36 pm, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
    > On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 16:33, Julian Elischer wrote:
    > > John Baldwin wrote:
    > > >On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
    > > >>Tony Arcieri wrote:
    > > >>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:40:50PM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
    > > >>>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Tony Arcieri wrote:
    > > >>>>>And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has
    > > >>>>> rendered proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called?
    > > >>>>
    > > >>>>This has very little to do with either UMA or ULE. Yes, it's
    > > >>>>unused, but it's still there as a reminder that it *ought* to be
    > > >>>>used. Unless there are still races I don't know about, it's
    > > >>>>probably safe to start using it again.
    > > >>>
    > > >>>Well, I'm going by the comments and implementation from kern_proc.c in
    > > >>>HEAD:
    > > >>>
    > > >>>/*
    > > >>>* UMA should ensure that this function is never called.
    > > >>>* Freeing a proc structure would violate type stability.
    > > >>>*/
    > > >>>static void
    > > >>>proc_fini(void *mem, int size)
    > > >>>{
    > > >>>
    > > >>> panic("proc reclaimed");
    > > >>>}
    > > >>>
    > > >>>The implementation in RELENG_5 invokes a scheduler function which is
    > > >>> no longer present in HEAD.
    > > >>
    > > >>when we declare teh zone for processes we tell UMA that it must never
    > > >> free a proc back to system memory. thus the 'fini' routine, that would
    > > >> be called is a page of that zone were to be returned to the system,
    > > >> should never be called.
    > > >
    > > >Why are struct procs forced to be type-stable?
    > >
    > > I have forgotten.. but they did..
    > > Peter also knew at one stage and he too has forgotten :-)
    >
    > kern/62890 ?
    > Guess this one is mine now :-(

    Hmm. pidp sounds ok to me. Some other users of fork1() use RFSTOPPED and
    then do a setrunnable() of the first thread after they have finished their
    localized setup. 

    -- 
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Scott Long: "Re: pci powerstate related: aac(4) broken on Perc 3/Di on -CURRENT"