From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Mar 19 11:40:04 2005
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E5AD816A4CE; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:40:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (f170.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 777DE43D1F; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:40:03 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2JBdxqU023464;
	Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:39:59 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
To: David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:16:31 +0800."
             <423C0A0F.6090409@freebsd.org> 
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:39:59 +0100
Message-ID: <23463.1111232399@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_thread.c 
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:40:05 -0000

In message <423C0A0F.6090409@freebsd.org>, David Xu writes:
>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>>phk         2005-03-19 08:22:13 UTC
>>
>>  FreeBSD src repository
>>
>>  Sleeping is not allowed in uma->fini
>>
>I have not tested if this change will hurt libpthread performance,
>but it is obvious that benifit of uma cache will be reduced by
>this change.

I am aware of that and I don't like it either.

The problem is that the uma_mutex is held over the uma->fini() call
and I'm surprised that we set so tight constraints on these functions
but I did not manage to corner the UMA crew and talk to them about it
yesterday evening.

One obvious solution is to taskq the release of the unit number.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.