Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:53:36 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: bmilekic@unixdaemons.com Cc: hsu@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step Message-ID: <20030122.215336.55300145.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030122162531.B77209@unixdaemons.com> References: <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> <0H94005IYWJT1Z@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> <20030122162531.B77209@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030122162531.B77209@unixdaemons.com>
Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> writes:
: Not one of you has said why you think that the wait behavior should
: not be the default behavior and why the dontwait behavior shouldn't be
: treated like an exception.
We are saying, but you aren't listening. We are concerned about the
kernel programmer paying attention to the sleepability of the kernel
calls they are making. We are concerned that making wait default will
lead to a larger standard deviation in the cases where the thread has
to wait. We are concerned about the use of locks and allocating
memory with the locks held (juding from the could sleep messages we
have a lot of this code). We are conerned about the interface being
correct.
Warner
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?20030122.215336.55300145.imp>