Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:27:25 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Expensive timeout(9) function ? Message-ID: <20040104232453.V77465@carver.gumbysoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0401050544030.54854@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0401041820230.54854@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <20040104205911.S77465@carver.gumbysoft.com> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0401050544030.54854@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, Doug White wrote: > > > > what reports do you expect with the > > > > > > "Expensive timeout(9) function" > > > > > > message ? Why do we see it ? > > > > You compiled your kernel with 'options DIAGNOSTIC'. Unless you have an > > explicit reason for doing so, you should not use this option. > > I do have. > > Some people added the code for a special purpose I guess - most likely to > identify something ? So the question is what's the purpose and > if people who compile with DIAGNOSTIC and see it should they report it > and if so what should they report ? I suspect its some code to check for functions that abuse timeouts for long-lasting operations, since no other timeouts can fire while they are called (I think). You'll have to check the commit logs to see exactly why that was added. In any case, unless you're having a problem, we're not interested in any reports of any abnormal behavior when running with DIAGNOSTIC enabled. Use At Your Own Risk. -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040104232453.V77465>