Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:45:24 -0400 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, Freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: -current kernel still considered dangerous Message-ID: <20010606184523.P1832@superconductor.rush.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010606095709.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:57:09AM -0700 References: <15134.14841.825808.882824@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <XFMail.010606095709.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [010606 12:58] wrote: > > > Is there any documentation what the locking requirements of various > > vm functions are now? I tested osf1 after my initial set of commits to catch > > alpha up to x86, but an assert must have been added since then. > > Not really, and it is in a state of flux right now. On my todo list is to > change the vm_map's to be locked by a sx lock, and once that is done I will > change those mtx_assert's to simply require the sx lock rather than the vm_mtx > lock. However, I'm still not sure how vm_page's will be locked. vm_object's > will probably have their own mutex or sx lock though. Linux uses a single lock to protect them, most of the splvm()'s that you removed were placeholders for the vm page queue's mutex. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010606184523.P1832>