Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:43:33 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: David Greenman <dg@root.com> Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>, "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@kdm.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, alfred@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: zero copy code review Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012011843220.46782-100000@beppo.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <200012020222.SAA14753@implode.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, David Greenman wrote: > >> >> Yes, that's always been my assumption too. That's why I never noticed > >> >> it... > >> > > >> >IIRC, this has never been guaranteed. It's often unlikely that a request can't > >> >be satisfied after a sleep with the current code. > >> > >> FreeBSD blocked indefinitly and never returned a NULL pointer. > > > >Smells like livelock somewhere here, but has it changed recently as has been > >asserted? > > Huh? No, the process allocating the memory blocks waiting for memory. If > memory never becomes available, then the process never wakes up, but this is > NOT a livelock. > oops, sorry, you're right. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012011843220.46782-100000>