From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 21:21:04 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B46116A543 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:21:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D692C43D2F for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:21:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 7355 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2005 21:21:03 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 6 Jan 2005 21:21:03 -0000 Received: from [10.50.41.243] (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j06LKeBA083753; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:20:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:30:36 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <20041215215422.GA19373@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41C0BA64.3080908@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <41C0BA64.3080908@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200501061430.36820.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: David Schultz cc: Tony Arcieri cc: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:21:05 -0000 On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27 pm, Julian Elischer wrote: > Tony Arcieri wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:40:50PM -0500, David Schultz wrote: > >>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Tony Arcieri wrote: > >>>And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has rendered > >>>proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called? > >> > >>This has very little to do with either UMA or ULE. Yes, it's > >>unused, but it's still there as a reminder that it *ought* to be > >>used. Unless there are still races I don't know about, it's > >>probably safe to start using it again. > > > >Well, I'm going by the comments and implementation from kern_proc.c in > > HEAD: > > > >/* > > * UMA should ensure that this function is never called. > > * Freeing a proc structure would violate type stability. > > */ > >static void > >proc_fini(void *mem, int size) > >{ > > > > panic("proc reclaimed"); > >} > > > >The implementation in RELENG_5 invokes a scheduler function which is no > >longer present in HEAD. > > when we declare teh zone for processes we tell UMA that it must never free > a proc back to system memory. thus the 'fini' routine, that would be called > is a page of that zone were to be returned to the system, should never > be called. Why are struct procs forced to be type-stable? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org