Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 30 May 2007 17:36:44 -0700
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Updated rusage patch
Message-ID:  <465E189C.4000609@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070531091419.S826@besplex.bde.org>
References:  <20070529105856.L661@10.0.0.1> <200705291456.38515.jhb@freebsd.org>	<20070529121653.P661@10.0.0.1> <20070530065423.H93410@delplex.bde.org>	<20070529141342.D661@10.0.0.1> <20070530125553.G12128@besplex.bde.org>	<20070529201255.X661@10.0.0.1> <20070529220936.W661@10.0.0.1>	<20070530201618.T13220@besplex.bde.org> <20070530115752.F661@10.0.0.1> <20070531091419.S826@besplex.bde.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote:

> - RELENG_4: statclock() uses splhigh() but not interrupt atomicity.
>             exit1() uses no locking and thus races with statclock().
>   above: statclock() still uses sched_lock but not interrupt atomicity.


sched_lock blocks interrupts

>          exit1() uses no locking and thus races with statclock().

> Time fields are mostly in rux and still fully locked by sched_lock.
> exit1() copies some of them to p_ru, but that copy is not used.  I
> think proc locking is still used for p_ru -- it is used in kern_wait(),
> where it seems to be necessary to prevent multiple threads in the
> parent process racing to reap the child.
> 
> Bruce
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?465E189C.4000609>