Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:37 -0500 From: Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) Message-ID: <1105050997.27981.26.camel@palm.tree.com> In-Reply-To: <41DDAEA9.90401@elischer.org> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <20041215215422.GA19373@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41C0BA64.3080908@elischer.org> <200501061430.36820.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <41DDAEA9.90401@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 16:33, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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 :-)
kern/62890 ?
Guess this one is mine now :-(
Stephan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1105050997.27981.26.camel>