Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:47:06 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_taskqueue.c Message-ID: <200601110847.08614.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200601110037.k0B0bDv4009424@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200601110037.k0B0bDv4009424@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 10 January 2006 07:37 pm, Scott Long wrote: > scottl 2006-01-11 00:37:13 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/kern subr_taskqueue.c > Log: > The interlock in taskqueue_terminate() is completely wrong for taskqueu= es > that use spinlocks. Remove it for now. Eh? It's waiting for the wakeup that comes from kthread_exit() after the=20 thread has exited which is locked via the proc lock. Sleeping on the=20 taskqueue itself doesn't buy you anything. (In fact, it might sleep=20 forever.) The simplest solution might be to acquire the proc lock a lot=20 earlier before the taskqueue lock in this function so that you don't have t= o=20 acquire it while holding the taskqueue lock since that is what gives you=20 problems. =2D-=20 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> =A0<>< =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" =A0=3D =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601110847.08614.jhb>