From owner-p4-projects Sat May 18 20:32:21 2002 Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 203DE37B404; Sat, 18 May 2002 20:32:18 -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 7BC4437B404; Sat, 18 May 2002 20:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4J3WBR76845; Sat, 18 May 2002 23:32:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:32:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson To: John Baldwin Cc: Jeff Roberson , Peter Wemm , Perforce Change Reviews , Julian Elischer , Jonathan Mini Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020518233041.X49505-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 18 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > 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. > Why are we blocking in init? Is this a tsleep() block or short term lock block? It may add a few lock/unlock calls to uma but that should be ok since it's on a per slab basis. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message