Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:11:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <20020518230944.I49505-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20020518124339.F25907@stylus.haikugeek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jonathan Mini wrote: > John Baldwin [jhb@FreeBSD.org] wrote : > > > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > The old analogy to this problem was one of the reasons that I used > > > the thread_reap() command an allowed them to be torn down > > > at a known safe time.. > > > > The fini() call out should be a safe time, I think the locking in uma > > just needs to be adjusted to ensure it is safe. > > I think Jeff agrees as well. > > Jeff, are you reading this thread? The fini call happens w/o the zone lock being held. The init could be called w/o the zone lock being held as well if this is important. I haven't seen this whole thread though. What is the issue? And what is the desired behavior? Thanks, Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020518230944.I49505-100000>