From owner-p4-projects Thu May 16 23:11:56 2002 Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id A102137B411; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:11:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from evilpete.dyndns.org (12-232-26-46.client.attbi.com [12.232.26.46]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E1F37B403; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.wemm.org ([10.0.0.3]) by evilpete.dyndns.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4H68v107252; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:09:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF499380A; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:08:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jonathan Mini Cc: Julian Elischer , jhb@freebsd.org, Perforce Change Reviews Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review In-Reply-To: <20020516225858.D25907@stylus.haikugeek.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:08:56 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20020517060856.CF499380A@overcee.wemm.org> Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jonathan Mini wrote: > Peter Wemm [peter@wemm.org] wrote : > > > Jonathan Mini wrote: > > > > > The only problem he foresaw was that the init/fini functions could be cal led > > > by the pager daemon, but I don't see any problem there either. > > > > Somewhere along the way we were planning to put in code that checked for > > things that *might* call tsleep() and trap mutexes being held. I dont know > > if the UMA stuff calls tsleep (directly or indirectly) or not, but it was > > my understanding that it is a Bad Idea(TM) to call anything that can tsleep > > with a mutex held. > > > > I think maybe you misunderstand. The problem isn't that the pager calls the > uma init/fini functions, but rather that *my* init/fini functions may block > inside the VM. Ah. Thanks for the clarification. If that block within VM is a tsleep block instead of a mutex block then we probably do have problems.. Assuming uma calls your init/fini functions with some of its locks held. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message