Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:39:12 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: LI Xin <delphij@delphij.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch for review: resolve a race condition in [sg]etpriority() Message-ID: <200702221639.12751.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <45DDD816.80303@delphij.net> References: <45CC0EB9.7030400@delphij.net> <200702090837.04495.jhb@freebsd.org> <45DDD816.80303@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 22 February 2007 12:51, LI Xin wrote: > Hi, John, > > John Baldwin wrote: > > My only reason for favoring the wakeup for complete initialization is that > > while this patch may solve the getprio/setprio race, it doesn't solve all > > PRS_NEW-related races, which the sleep/wakeup proposal did. > > Today I have some time and tried your approach for a second time. It > looks like that we can not simply sleep with allproc_lock held. The > attached patchset implements the proof-of-concept idea, please let me > know if you think this one is better. Ok. It would actually be really nice if we could not put the process onto the allproc list until it was really fully created. Is the only reason we put it on the list to prevent duplicate pid allocation? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702221639.12751.jhb>