From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 4 11:10:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from meow.osd.bsdi.com (meow.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.88]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B479B37B408 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:10:12 -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 f54I9pG17019; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:09:51 -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: <200106030445.f534jTA07246@earth.backplane.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Matt Dillon Subject: RE: Patch to fix code that kills procs when swap runs out (stabl Cc: Alfred Perlstein , hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 03-Jun-01 Matt Dillon wrote: > Alfred, I'm cc'ing you. If you have some time, could you check the > vmspace_swap_count() routine? What do I need to mutex it for -current? > For -stable I don't think there's an issue since VM objects are not > instantiated/destroyed by interrupts. > > All suggestions are welcome. Barring whatever Alfred says, it looks like you don't need any additional locking as we already hold the vm mutex by the time we get to that point in swapout_procs(). -- 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-hackers" in the body of the message