Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:03:35 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <XFMail.20020518090335.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205180424010.60393-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18-May-2002 Julian Elischer 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. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.20020518090335.jhb>