Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:52:33 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_intr.c subr_sleepqueue.c src/sys/geom geom_io.c src/sys/sys proc.h Message-ID: <20050915205233.GA23141@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <200509151905.j8FJ5beJ008055@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200509151905.j8FJ5beJ008055@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 07:05:37PM +0000, John Baldwin wrote: +> jhb 2005-09-15 19:05:37 UTC +> +> FreeBSD src repository +> +> Modified files: +> sys/kern kern_intr.c subr_sleepqueue.c +> sys/geom geom_io.c +> sys/sys proc.h +> Log: +> - Add a new simple facility for marking the current thread as being in a +> state where sleeping on a sleep queue is not allowed. The facility +> doesn't support recursion but uses a simple private per-thread flag +> (TDP_NOSLEEPING). The sleepq_add() function will panic if the flag is +> set and INVARIANTS is enabled. +> - Use this new facility to replace the g_xup and g_xdown mutexes that were +> (ab)used to achieve similar behavior. So is this still possible to use mutexes in I/O paths (g_up/g_down threads) or it will panic immediatelly? The policy for now was: using mutexes in a sane way is possible. The question is: did we went from a warning when WITNESS is enabled to a panic with INVARIANTS only? -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDKd8RForvXbEpPzQRAotOAJ4n47PBn2tTPgLf/v4GZPM/ZZfXrgCcCE2r GKro8kdFYwwUPGLxYjgBOx0= =mGRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050915205233.GA23141>