Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 13:31:11 +0000 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: calcru: negative time: Message-ID: <1009.828538271@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:15:32 %2B1000." <199604031215.WAA17145@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Like malloc(3) is very very carefully documented to not work in signal
> handlers? ;-)
yeah, right, and people keep making signal handlers along the lines of:
sighup() {
printf("Ignoring sighub, why did you do that ???\n");
}
:-(
I don't see the problem in the kernel, if the net code calls malloc, worst
case malloc will go to the VM system and ask for space, if the vm system
is already locked (splvm or otherwise) it will fail, and (hopefully) malloc
was called with NOWAIT so everything is fine, apart from the dropped packets.
Anyway, what I really wanted to come down to, is that we should start to
look at locks around actual specific datastructures, rather than these
global locks, SMP/AMP will be here soon, and we need to address this
problem then.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1009.828538271>