From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Apr 30 12: 2:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from meow.osd.bsdi.com (meow.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0903537B423 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:02:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@jhb-laptop.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by meow.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3UJ1xG74775; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20010429013533.D18676@fw.wintelcom.net> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:01:19 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: that vm diff now makes it into single user mode. Cc: smp@FreeBSD.org, Jake Burkholder Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 29-Apr-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Jake Burkholder [010428 23:10] wrote: >> >> i386/i386/vm_machdep.c: >> >> the mtx_trylock in vm_page_zero_idle is unnecessary, the lock is >> already held. This whole thing needs to be non-blocking if its >> going to be called from the idle loop, but I'm not sure that >> that's still possible. Its currently commented out. > > Ok, should be fixed. I guess we now know where it could have been > useful to be able to spin on a sleeplock, ie not worry about > idle getting stuck on a runqueue/sleepqueue. Having the idle process hold locks that other threads block on can really start wreaking havoc when you throw priority propagation into the mix. It would be best to push the page zeroing off into a very low priority kernel thread or something. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message