From owner-p4-projects  Sat May 18 20:11:51 2002
Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767)
	id 3D58E37B412; Sat, 18 May 2002 20:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 09ABB37B40C; Sat, 18 May 2002 20:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4J3BYn68453;
	Sat, 18 May 2002 23:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:11:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>,
	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
In-Reply-To: <20020518124339.F25907@stylus.haikugeek.com>
Message-ID: <20020518230944.I49505-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jonathan Mini wrote:

> 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?

The fini call happens w/o the zone lock being held.  The init could be
called w/o the zone lock being held as well if this is important.  I
haven't seen this whole thread though.  What is the issue? And what is the
desired behavior?

Thanks,
Jeff


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