From owner-p4-projects Fri May 17 7: 3:44 2002 Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 8A43237B411; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail12.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.212]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEED37B412 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 07:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3740 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 14:02:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail12.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 17 May 2002 14:02:19 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4HE2IF75719; Fri, 17 May 2002 10:02:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20020517060856.CF499380A@overcee.wemm.org> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:02:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Peter Wemm Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Cc: Perforce Change Reviews Cc: Perforce Change Reviews , Julian Elischer , Jonathan Mini 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 On 17-May-2002 Peter Wemm wrote: > 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. Yes, I think that is the problem. I think it has to do with setting up/tearing down the thread stacks. If uma could do this w/o holding the zone locks that would probably be sufficient. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message