Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:36:57 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ugly, slow shutdown Message-ID: <200008070836.BAA02380@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Aug 2000 01:18:54 PDT." <20000807011854.Q4854@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> [000805 08:49] wrote: > > > > Patch 2 is smaller and possibly controversial. Normally bufdaemon and > > syncer are sleeping when they are told to suspend. This delays shutdown > > by a few boring seconds. With this patch, it is zippier. I expect people > > to complain about this shortcut, but every sleeping process should expect > > to be woken for no reason at all. Basic kernel premise. > > You better bet it's controversial, this isn't "Basic kernel premise" Actually, that depends. It is definitely poor programming practice to not check the condition for which you slept on wakeup. > *boom* *crash* *ow* :) Doctor: So don't do that. In this case, the relevant processes just need to learn to check whether they've been woken in order to die. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200008070836.BAA02380>