From owner-p4-projects  Sat May 18 12:44:28 2002
Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767)
	id 6F85337B411; Sat, 18 May 2002 12:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org
Received: from 12-234-96-171.client.attbi.com (12-234-96-171.client.attbi.com [12.234.96.171])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 361E937B40A; Sat, 18 May 2002 12:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 12-234-96-171.client.attbi.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 99967A900; Sat, 18 May 2002 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:43:39 -0700
From: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>,
	Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>,
	Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review
Message-ID: <20020518124339.F25907@stylus.haikugeek.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205180424010.60393-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <XFMail.20020518090335.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020518090335.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Sat, May 18, 2002 at 09:03:35AM -0400
Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <p4-projects.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20p4-projects>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20p4-projects>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

John Baldwin [jhb@FreeBSD.org] wrote :

> > 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..
> 
> The fini() call out should be a safe time, I think the locking in uma
> just needs to be adjusted to ensure it is safe.

I think Jeff agrees as well.

Jeff, are you reading this thread?

-- 
Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org>
http://www.haikugeek.com

"He who is not aware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge."
                                                        -- Richard Whatley

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message