Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:36:44 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updated rusage patch Message-ID: <465E189C.4000609@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20070531091419.S826@besplex.bde.org> References: <20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1> <200705291456.38515.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070529121653.P661@10.0.0.1> <20070530065423.H93410@delplex.bde.org> <20070529141342.D661@10.0.0.1> <20070530125553.G12128@besplex.bde.org> <20070529201255.X661@10.0.0.1> <20070529220936.W661@10.0.0.1> <20070530201618.T13220@besplex.bde.org> <20070530115752.F661@10.0.0.1> <20070531091419.S826@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > - RELENG_4: statclock() uses splhigh() but not interrupt atomicity. > exit1() uses no locking and thus races with statclock(). > above: statclock() still uses sched_lock but not interrupt atomicity. sched_lock blocks interrupts > exit1() uses no locking and thus races with statclock(). > Time fields are mostly in rux and still fully locked by sched_lock. > exit1() copies some of them to p_ru, but that copy is not used. I > think proc locking is still used for p_ru -- it is used in kern_wait(), > where it seems to be necessary to prevent multiple threads in the > parent process racing to reap the child. > > Bruce > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465E189C.4000609>