Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:15:40 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Richard Wenninger <richard@richardw.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UMA lock Message-ID: <20020529061540.88CD6380A@overcee.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <3CF468F0.EDECFE43@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > Peter Wemm wrote: > > The bug is that things are calling things like malloc with M_WAITOK when > > waiting is explicitly not allowed. There are other functions that can > > tsleep as well that we have not added checks for yet, so this is likely > > just the tip of the iceberg. :-( > > Why is this a problem? M_WAITOK does not mean that it will wait > indefinitely, even though you'd think it would mean that, given > the name... > > I think _sleeping_ is a problem, but allocation with M_WAITOK > shouldn't be, given it's strange definition of "waiting". This > is one of those hacks that John Baldwin was talking about earlier... As you said, _sleeping_ is the problem. M_WAITOK means "you may sleep if you like". ie: it is a time bomb waiting for the right low memory condition which will then explode with a 100% authentic crash or lock up. Pretend it said M_SLEEPOK instead of M_WAITOK. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020529061540.88CD6380A>