Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:41:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Bethke <stb@hanse.de> To: net@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? [was: Huge Bug not fixed?] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980825233251.25049C-100000@transit.hanse.de> In-Reply-To: <199808252122.RAA03172@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Garrett Wollman wrote: > [Please watch followups!] > > <<On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 21:25:12 +0200 (CEST), Stefan Bethke <stb@hanse.de> > said: > > > What are the expected semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? I would suggest > > that by specifing M_WAIT, the caller wants to sleep until a mbuf becomes > > available, as it is already the case if the vm map must be extended. > > It should sleep, but actually doing so while avoiding deadlocks is > problematic. Since the mbuf allocator as currently formulated is > going away, callers to mget should expect that the allocation might > fail, but that M_WAIT makes it ``try harder'' as it were. Which leaves the problem in so_send(). Anyone working on this already? I'd be relieved if I'd rather had not to grasp so_send() and all it's implications... however, if this is too low on others list, I'd might give it a try. Anything I should know about the "mbuf allocator going away" while trying to delve into that? I did a quick search in the archives, but did't really find anything. Thanks, Stefan -- Stefan Bethke Muehlendamm 12 Phone: +49-40-256848, +49-177-3504009 D-22087 Hamburg <stefan.bethke@hanse.de> Hamburg, Germany <stb@freebsd.org> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980825233251.25049C-100000>