Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:26:35 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Jeff Roberson" <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updated rusage patch Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10706081026l27bef70pd2d1d32c7e57d442@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070607135511.P606@10.0.0.1> References: <20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1> <20070601154833.O4207@besplex.bde.org> <20070601014601.I799@10.0.0.1> <20070601200348.G6201@delplex.bde.org> <20070601123530.B606@10.0.0.1> <20070604160036.N1084@besplex.bde.org> <46652D17.5090903@FreeBSD.org> <20070605214404.X47001@delplex.bde.org> <20070606152352.H606@10.0.0.1> <20070607135511.P606@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/6/7, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>: > The patch at http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/rusage3.diff fixes points 1 > and 2 as well as the p_runtime iniitialization problem. This moves the > collection of child rusage back into exit1() and changes the exiting > threads to accumulate their rusage into p_ru under protection of the > process spinlock. This also removes the gross lock/unlock of proc slock > (formerly sched_lock) from wait and implements something more sensible. I have a question: it is fair to assume that extra per-proc spinlock acquisitions/removals on the PRS_ZOMBIE state are orthogonal to this problem? They should belong to another 'fix', shouldn't? Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10706081026l27bef70pd2d1d32c7e57d442>