Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:41:07 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Stefan Bethke <stb@hanse.de>
To:        net@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? [was: Huge Bug not fixed?]
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.980825233251.25049C-100000@transit.hanse.de>
In-Reply-To: <199808252122.RAA03172@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> [Please watch followups!]
> 
> <<On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 21:25:12 +0200 (CEST), Stefan Bethke <stb@hanse.de>
> said:
> 
> > What are the expected semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? I would suggest
> > that by specifing M_WAIT, the caller wants to sleep until a mbuf becomes
> > available, as it is already the case if the vm map must be extended.
> 
> It should sleep, but actually doing so while avoiding deadlocks is
> problematic.  Since the mbuf allocator as currently formulated is
> going away, callers to mget should expect that the allocation might
> fail, but that M_WAIT makes it ``try harder'' as it were.

Which leaves the problem in so_send(). Anyone working on this already? I'd be
relieved if I'd rather had not to grasp so_send() and all it's
implications... however, if this is too low on others list, I'd might give
it a try.

Anything I should know about the "mbuf allocator going away" while trying to
delve into that? I did a quick search in the archives, but did't really find
anything.

Thanks,
Stefan

--
Stefan Bethke
Muehlendamm 12            Phone: +49-40-256848, +49-177-3504009
D-22087 Hamburg           <stefan.bethke@hanse.de>
Hamburg, Germany          <stb@freebsd.org>


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980825233251.25049C-100000>