From owner-p4-projects Sat May 18 20:21:29 2002 Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 5F96E37B400; Sat, 18 May 2002 20:21:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0813637B40F for ; Sat, 18 May 2002 20:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25644 invoked from network); 19 May 2002 03:21:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 19 May 2002 03:21:15 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (laptop.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.4]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4J3KNF84319; Sat, 18 May 2002 23:20:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20020518230944.I49505-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:20:13 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Jeff Roberson Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Cc: Jeff Roberson , Peter Wemm , Perforce Change Reviews , Julian Elischer , Jonathan Mini Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 19-May-2002 Jeff Roberson wrote: > 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? Yes, having init() called w/o it would be good since I think init() is the one that can actually block. For threads the init/fini setup and teardown thread stacks and the actual operation to do a thread stack teardown/setup can block so we need to not hold any locks when we do that. > Thanks, > Jeff -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message