From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 22:27:49 2004 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 1104116A4CF; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:27:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05E643D4C; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:27:48 +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 5D9A37A451; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:27:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41C0BA64.3080908@elischer.org> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:27:48 -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: Tony Arcieri References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org> <20041215152931.H60504@mail.chesapeake.net> <20041215210119.GF17276@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <20041215214050.GA64783@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20041215215422.GA19373@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> In-Reply-To: <20041215215422.GA19373@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: David Schultz cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:27:49 -0000 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. > >Tony Arcieri >_______________________________________________ >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" > >