Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:41:22 +0100 From: "Jerzy Sulowski" <jurek@intercom.pl> To: <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: <023701c4f440$d92ebe20$0200a8c0@intercom.pl> In-Reply-To: <1105050997.27981.26.camel@palm.tree.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Uphoff
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:37 PM
To: Julian Elischer
Cc: David Schultz; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tony Arcieri; John =
Baldwin
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd)
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 16:33, Julian Elischer wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>=20
> >On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > =20
> >
> >>Tony Arcieri wrote:
> >> =20
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:40:50PM -0500, David Schultz wrote:
> >>> =20
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> >>>> =20
> >>>>
> >>>>>And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has =
rendered
> >>>>>proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called?
> >>>>> =20
> >>>>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>> =20
> >>>>
> >>>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.
> >>> =20
> >>>
> >>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.
> >> =20
> >>
> >
> >Why are struct procs forced to be type-stable?
> >
>=20
> 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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?023701c4f440$d92ebe20$0200a8c0>