From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 6 22:38:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B94F16A4CE for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:38:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (duchess.speedfactory.net [66.23.201.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 032F243D2F for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:38:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ups@tree.com) Received: (qmail 23915 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jan 2005 22:38:48 -0000 Received: from duchess.speedfactory.net (66.23.201.84) by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2005 22:38:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 18954 invoked by uid 89); 6 Jan 2005 22:36:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO palm.tree.com) (66.23.216.49) by duchess.speedfactory.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2005 22:36:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.tree.com [127.0.0.1]) by palm.tree.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j06MabNg029307; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:36:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ups@tree.com) From: Stephan Uphoff To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <41DDAEA9.90401@elischer.org> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <20041215215422.GA19373@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41C0BA64.3080908@elischer.org> <200501061430.36820.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <41DDAEA9.90401@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1105050997.27981.26.camel@palm.tree.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:36:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: David Schultz cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: Tony Arcieri cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:38:54 -0000 On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 16:33, Julian Elischer wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > >On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27 pm, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > >>Tony Arcieri wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:40:50PM -0500, David Schultz wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Tony Arcieri wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has rendered > >>>>>proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>This has very little to do with either UMA or ULE. Yes, it's > >>>>unused, but it's still there as a reminder that it *ought* to be > >>>>used. Unless there are still races I don't know about, it's > >>>>probably safe to start using it again. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Well, I'm going by the comments and implementation from kern_proc.c in > >>>HEAD: > >>> > >>>/* > >>>* UMA should ensure that this function is never called. > >>>* Freeing a proc structure would violate type stability. > >>>*/ > >>>static void > >>>proc_fini(void *mem, int size) > >>>{ > >>> > >>> panic("proc reclaimed"); > >>>} > >>> > >>>The implementation in RELENG_5 invokes a scheduler function which is no > >>>longer present in HEAD. > >>> > >>> > >>when we declare teh zone for processes we tell UMA that it must never free > >>a proc back to system memory. thus the 'fini' routine, that would be called > >>is a page of that zone were to be returned to the system, should never > >>be called. > >> > >> > > > >Why are struct procs forced to be type-stable? > > > > I have forgotten.. but they did.. > Peter also knew at one stage and he too has forgotten :-) kern/62890 ? Guess this one is mine now :-( Stephan