From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 8 17:55:01 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3936416A41F for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08B413C447 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:55:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 69so394482wra for ; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=MtYpym+hDIlF3PKv/8MBI1mJuwk0V0v6KVmVyCflKIc/99mp34dU4gm+oo0ZrKPvGJfqfM99rDWhVXF35yP8UyBPcVSpU0y9ak20Rtq3dU87jdNyl5ivOt3xzjCki/CXP6bUoVlibaJYqXYg2kL83m1alTnAoLftXnPAngAl3fE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=hoe4E06rbdATNjdReqTXdmwDFkIwuHs8a2vuayTQkKA85/dulG24YyPnM6xdbPzTjwoSWy3yvdwNrH5XW3PNdR3TMFHqx5d/0MZvuKLOEMV7rLC6fSTurKO7yhQHWiXvCrxivAjcHuZGeI6f6MMjz8dsttZM1WGyVeRTsk1bMag= Received: by 10.78.172.20 with SMTP id u20mr1364321hue.1181325299463; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.120.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10706081054ob030862u58c123814510398@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:54:59 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com To: "Jeff Roberson" In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10706081026l27bef70pd2d1d32c7e57d442@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1> <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> <3bbf2fe10706081026l27bef70pd2d1d32c7e57d442@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 615fa2433c3aefd3 Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updated rusage patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:55:01 -0000 2007/6/8, Attilio Rao : > 2007/6/7, Jeff Roberson : > > 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? Mm, now I see that you could protect nicely PRS_ZOMBIE through PROC_LOCK since p_state is marked (j/c), no? (it is alredy acquired when checking for it). Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein