From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 21:33:30 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 599EC16A4CE; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:33:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E3D43D39; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:33:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from elischer.org (julian.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.97]) by mail.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61727A44B; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:33:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41DDAEA9.90401@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:33:29 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030516 X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <20041215215422.GA19373@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41C0BA64.3080908@elischer.org> <200501061430.36820.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200501061430.36820.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: David Schultz cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: Tony Arcieri 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 21:33:30 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: >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? > I have forgotten.. but they did.. Peter also knew at one stage and he too has forgotten :-) > > >