From owner-cvs-all Tue Aug 21 11:46: 7 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D6C37B407; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 0A18981D0A; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:46:01 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:46:01 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: John Baldwin Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_condvar.c kern_synch.c src/sys/sys proc.h Message-ID: <20010821134601.J81307@elvis.mu.org> References: <200108211842.f7LIgkp03186@freefall.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200108211842.f7LIgkp03186@freefall.freebsd.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:42:46AM -0700 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * John Baldwin [010821 13:42] wrote: > jhb 2001/08/21 11:42:46 PDT > > Modified files: > sys/kern kern_condvar.c kern_synch.c > sys/sys proc.h > Log: > - Fix a bug in the previous workaround for the tsleep/endtsleep race. > callout_stop() would fail in two cases: > 1) The timeout was currently executing, and > 2) The timeout had already executed. > We only needed to work around the race for 1). We caught some instances > of 2) via the PS_TIMEOUT flag, however, if endtsleep() fired after the > process had been woken up but before it had resumed execution, > PS_TIMEOUT would not be set, but callout_stop() would fail, so we > would block the process until endtsleep() resumed it. Except that > endtsleep() had already run and couldn't resume it. This adds a new flag > PS_TIMOFAIL to indicate the case of 2) when PS_TIMEOUT isn't set. > - Implement this race fix for condition variables as well. How likely are these sort of fixes going to be able to help the perceived instability of -current? Is -current noticeably unstable or do we just have the usual crowd of people screaming sort of like what was going on a couple of months ago. "current is broken" "no it's not" "yes it is" "give me a crashdump" ":P" etc. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Ok, who wrote this damn function called '??'? And why do my programs keep crashing in it? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message