Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:04:33 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@unixhelp.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Peter Wemm <peter@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_fork.c kern_linker.c vfs_aio.c src/sys/sys proc.h Message-ID: <43774.930765873@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:58:03 EDT." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906301357250.50480-100000@janus.syracuse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906301357250.50480-100000@janus.syracuse.net>, "Bria n F. Feldman" writes: >I thought about this a LOT, and it's not a great idea to hold a pointer to >the proc... It's not really that different from doing it to a vnode... Mind you, I've been trying to find a way NOT to do it for vnodes because I would like to be able to free them again. And I'm a little bit concerned if the zone allocator never frees pages again because that means that one mistake with a fork(2) and a lot of RAM (not VM, actual RAM) is tied up until next reboot. So if we have decided to make struct proc a stable storage kind of thing, then holding pointers is perfectly ok (with the addition of a serial number, p_pid wont do). It is the move to stable storage that has me concerned. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43774.930765873>