From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 8 13:03:00 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A43A37B401; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921F743FAF; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 13:02:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 1252F4AD5A; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:02:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C024AD59; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:02:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cs.rice.edu [127.0.0.1:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 25798-09; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:02:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: by cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 19572) id 009ED4AD57; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:02:56 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:02:56 -0500 From: Alan Cox To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20030408200256.GJ1112@cs.rice.edu> References: <20030317152235.M52165@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20021227p2 X-DCC--Metrics: cs.rice.edu 1066; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 cc: jeff@FreeBSD.ORG cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: malloc.9 locking section X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 20:03:00 -0000 On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 03:31:40PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 17-Mar-2003 Harti Brandt wrote: > > Index: malloc.9 > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/share/man/man9/malloc.9,v > > retrieving revision 1.30 > > diff -u -r1.30 malloc.9 > > --- malloc.9 24 Feb 2003 05:53:27 -0000 1.30 > > +++ malloc.9 17 Mar 2003 15:06:14 -0000 > > > > [snip] > > Looks good to me. While you are at it, please kill the following > from the manpage (if you aren't already doing so): > > Any calls to malloc() or free() when holding a vnode(9) interlock, will > cause a LOR (Lock Order Reversal) due to the interwining of VM Objects > and Vnodes. > Why? The above statement is true. Alan