From owner-cvs-all Tue Oct 1 9:47:48 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1929C37B404 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AFA43E4A for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:47:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 7108 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2002 16:47:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 1 Oct 2002 16:47:42 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g91GlQBv010674; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 12:47:29 -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: <20021002004350.C1540-100000@gamplex.bde.org> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 12:47:29 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Bruce Evans Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_synch.c Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org 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 On 01-Oct-2002 Bruce Evans wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >> jhb 2002/10/01 07:10:09 PDT >> >> Modified files: >> sys/kern kern_synch.c >> Log: >> - Adjust comment noting that handling of CPU limit exhaustion is done in >> ast(). >> - Actually set KEF_ASTPENDING so ast() is called. I think this is buggy >> for a process with multiple KSE's in that PS_XCPU is not a KSE event, >> it's a process-wide event. IMO there really should probably be two >> ASTPENDING flags, one for per-process, and one for per-KSE. >> >> Submitted by: bde > > I'm not sure who "I" is here :-). I think setting the flag for only one > KSE is kludgy but not buggy. Killing the process from 1 thread is > sufficient. If you killed it from several then you want to avoid warning > and bumping the cpu limit for each kill (the actual kills would coalesce). > One ASTPENDING flag process may already be one too many, since you have > to remember to set it together with the flag(s) that tell ast() what to > do, and having a summary flag like it doesn't significantly simplify the > test for whether ast() should be called. The "I" is me, sorry. I replied to you in a private e-mail that I think we could abolish the actual ASTPENDING flags and instead define those constants as a mask of the relevant flags that should be tested against. > Thanks for committing this and related patches. Thanks for the good bugfixes. :) -- 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 cvs-all" in the body of the message