From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 15 00:29:45 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA19430 for current-outgoing; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:29:45 -0800 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA19420 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:29:42 -0800 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin.Root.COM [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.8/8.6.5) with ESMTP id AAA11470; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:29:33 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with SMTP id AAA00206; Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:29:33 -0800 Message-Id: <199503150829.AAA00206@corbin.Root.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: corbin.Root.COM: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) cc: obrien@antares.aero.org (Mike O'Brien), freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users) Subject: Re: "Text file busy" with program not running anymore? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Mar 95 08:02:02 +0100." <199503150702.IAA02608@uriah.heep.sax.de> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 00:29:24 -0800 Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> > it, the thing to do is to shut off the VTEXT flag when the object reference >> > count goes to 0...I thought we already did that...but we don't. This should >> > completely solve the problem. I'll add it to my whiteboard. >> >> I realize I'm coming late to the table with this (I've been on vacation) but >> I should point out that this persistant caching was a deliberate choice on >> the part of the Berkeley design team. The notion was that it would >> greatly speed up the execution of common, short-lived binaries if their >> texts were gradually cached by the system. > >I don't think it's the point to not cache them anymore, it's only the >point to cease marking them as ``text file busy'' when there's >actually no longer an active reference for it. No other system that i That's correct. I've already committed the change to handle the condition properly. It has nothing to do with (not) caching file data...it's just a matter of (not) allowing writes. -DG