Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:23:38 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: peter@sirius.com, mrcpu@internetcds.com (Jaye Mathisen), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vmopar state in 2.2.7? Message-ID: <199808140023.RAA17790@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Aug 1998 12:59:45 PDT." <199808131959.MAA00604@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> Try changing lines 1226 and 1261 to something like: >> tsleep(p, PVM, "vmopar", 5 * hz); >... >> This function would return "EWOULDBLOCK" after the time-out expires then, >> no clue what that will do to your system or apps ;) -- I would expect the >> blocked process to go away within 5 seconds... > >I dont' have 2.2 sources to hand, and the above is now just a call to >vm_page_sleep, but if the timeout expires, the entire operation is >retried, so it should be harmless (although it is masking a legitimate >bug). I said in my last reply on this that it would do bad things, but you're probably right that it should be harmless. There are other parts of the code where premature wakeups would be bad, so one must be careful about making this assumption. If that "fixes" the problem, then this probably indicates a problem with a missing wakeup somewhere. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808140023.RAA17790>