From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 4 15:38:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329FF16A4CF; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:38:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5BA43D1D; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:38:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i94FcsAv014035; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:38:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.13.1/8.12.10/Submit) id i94FcsKK014034; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:38:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:38:54 -0400 From: David Schultz To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20041004153854.GA14022@VARK.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: John Baldwin , src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200410010501.i9151US7086474@repoman.freebsd.org> <200410041034.32221.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200410041034.32221.jhb@FreeBSD.org> cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_fork.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:38:46 -0000 On Mon, Oct 04, 2004, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 01 October 2004 01:01 am, David Schultz wrote: > > das 2004-10-01 05:01:29 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern kern_fork.c > > Log: > > Avoid calling _PHOLD(p1) with p2's lock held, since _PHOLD() > > may block to swap in p1. Instead, call _PHOLD earlier, at a > > point where the only lock held happens to be p1's. > > FWIW, I don't think this can actually happen because curthread belonging to p1 > is executing and it wouldn't be executing unless it was swapped in, so I > don't think that PHOLD could ever have blocked. Yes, you're right. I'll revert this one. Shall I also change the _PHOLD() into simply p1->p_lock++ (and similarly for _PRELE()) to avoid the useless test?