Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 04:25:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205180424010.60393-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020517100208.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.. (for setting up I actually punted a but by having some spare threads around....) 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0205180424010.60393-100000>