Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:32:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <20020518233041.X49505-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020518232013.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 18 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > Yes, having init() called w/o it would be good since I think init() is > the one that can actually block. For threads the init/fini setup > and teardown thread stacks and the actual operation to do a thread stack > teardown/setup can block so we need to not hold any locks when we do > that. > Why are we blocking in init? Is this a tsleep() block or short term lock block? It may add a few lock/unlock calls to uma but that should be ok since it's on a per slab basis. 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?20020518233041.X49505-100000>