From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Dec 1 18:26:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from implode.root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A2137B400; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA14753; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:22:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200012020222.SAA14753@implode.root.com> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: Andrew Gallatin , Bosko Milekic , "Kenneth D. Merry" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, alfred@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: zero copy code review In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:06:22 PST." From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:22:36 -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> >> Yes, that's always been my assumption too. That's why I never noticed >> >> it... >> > >> >IIRC, this has never been guaranteed. It's often unlikely that a request can't >> >be satisfied after a sleep with the current code. >> >> FreeBSD blocked indefinitly and never returned a NULL pointer. > >Smells like livelock somewhere here, but has it changed recently as has been >asserted? Huh? No, the process allocating the memory blocks waiting for memory. If memory never becomes available, then the process never wakes up, but this is NOT a livelock. -DG David Greenman Co-founder, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org President, TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message