Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:06:18 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Marius_N=C3=BCnnerich?= <marius@nuenneri.ch> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Hyperactive g_event thread Message-ID: <AANLkTikvV4oymBBA%2B_0zbzd_edS8dRfqqJRODE0989%2Bn@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=uRPV2T0=t_1s=Jc4PmBtai=__HqhCtYpiDdTQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4C4ED619.7050305@FreeBSD.org> <27237.1280241532@critter.freebsd.dk> <AANLkTi=uRPV2T0=t_1s=Jc4PmBtai=__HqhCtYpiDdTQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 18:07, Marius N=C3=BCnnerich <marius@nuenneri.ch> w= rote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 16:38, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wro= te: >> In message <4C4ED619.7050305@FreeBSD.org>, Alexander Motin writes: >>>Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >>>I have already removed alike timeouts on up/down threads and it indeed >>>was safe there. But are you really sure about this specific case? Cause >>>I'm not. Up/down threads using msleep and checking lack of work after >>>dropping/grabbing lock. Event thread instead does several tasks, drops >>>lock few times between them and uses tsleep(). I would say there should >>>be a bunch of race conditions. >> >> Quite likely, I didn't say it would be a trivial thing to remove >> that workaround :-) > > Hi, > > I was running with a patch that removed the timeout for a while like 2 > years ago. Albeit not with high load. Worked fine at that time, I will > search for the patch when I'm back home later today. > > =C2=A0- Marius > Here it is: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom/2008-December/003200.html The mail is quite old now, I don't know if the patch still applies. Will check that if I can find the time. I would be happy to see this committed after all this time :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTikvV4oymBBA%2B_0zbzd_edS8dRfqqJRODE0989%2Bn>