From owner-freebsd-current Tue Aug 25 14:42:07 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA12653 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:42:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from rrz.Hanse.DE (rrz.Hanse.DE [193.174.9.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA12608; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 14:41:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stb@hanse.de) Received: from daemon.Hanse.DE (daemon.Hanse.DE [193.174.9.17]) by rrz.Hanse.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA27816; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:48:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stb@hanse.de) Received: from transit.hanse.de (transit.Hanse.DE [193.174.9.161]) by daemon.Hanse.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA00354; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:42:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from stb@hanse.de) Received: from localhost (stb@localhost) by transit.hanse.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA01723; Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:41:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: transit.hanse.de: stb owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 23:41:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Bethke To: net@FreeBSD.ORG cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Semantics of MGET(m, M_WAIT, *)? [was: Huge Bug not fixed?] In-Reply-To: <199808252122.RAA03172@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Garrett Wollman wrote: > [Please watch followups!] > > < > 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 Hamburg, Germany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message