From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 22:52:24 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 A5F3F16A4CE for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:52:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.speakeasy.net (mail1.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5486E43D46 for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:52:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 31039 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2005 22:52:24 -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 22:52:23 -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 j06MqJNX084410; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:52:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Stephan Uphoff Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:52:28 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41DDAEA9.90401@elischer.org> <1105050997.27981.26.camel@palm.tree.com> In-Reply-To: <1105050997.27981.26.camel@palm.tree.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200501061752.28411.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: David Schultz cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: Julian Elischer 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 22:52:24 -0000 On Thursday 06 January 2005 05:36 pm, Stephan Uphoff wrote: > 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 :-( Hmm. pidp sounds ok to me. Some other users of fork1() use RFSTOPPED and then do a setrunnable() of the first thread after they have finished their localized setup. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org