Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:13:17 -0400 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_proc.c kern_switch.c src/sys/sys sched.h src/sys/vm vm_glue.c Message-ID: <20040920001317.GA2829@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <414E0DCA.5090601@elischer.org> References: <200409191834.i8JIYHXU089517@repoman.freebsd.org> <414E0DCA.5090601@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 19, 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > David Schultz wrote: > >das 2004-09-19 18:34:17 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern kern_proc.c kern_switch.c > > sys/sys sched.h > > sys/vm vm_glue.c > > Log: > > The zone from which proc structures are allocated is marked > > UMA_ZONE_NOFREE to guarantee type stability, so proc_fini() should > > never be called. Move an assertion from proc_fini() to proc_dtor() > > and garbage-collect the rest of the unreachable code. I have retained > > vm_proc_dispose(), since I consider its disuse a bug. > > well we do aim to one day remove the requirement for UMA_ZONE_NOFREE. > In fact I have a gague feeling we mayhave already done so. I think it > had to do with what page tables the kernel ran on after a thread went away. > Peter may have a better memory as to why that was required. We are clearly not there yet for things like p_vmspace. Look at sys_process.c or procfs, for instance. But I don't mind backing this out if someone is imminently preparing to remove the requirement. By the way, it would be great if someone who understands it better could edit the comments in sys/proc.h to reflect reality, particularly with respect to the locking model. Some of it seems to have rotted. For example, (l) and (m) are unused and p_stats looks like it should be (c + j).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040920001317.GA2829>