Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:39:57 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kldunload DIAGNOSTIC idea... Message-ID: <75604.1090348797@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:32:13 EDT." <20040720183213.GC1009@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20040720183213.GC1009@green.homeunix.org>, Brian Fundakowski Feldma n writes: >On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:20:23PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >> I'm pulling hair out trying to make it guaranteed safe to unload device >> driver modules, and the major pain here is to make sure there is no >> thread stuck somewhere inside the code. >> >> That gave me the idea for a simple little DIAGNOSTIC check for kldunload: >> run through the proc/thread table and look for any thread with an >> instruction counter inside the range of pages we are going to unload. >> >> Any takers ? > >You mean any thread with a stack trace that includes an instruction >counter inside those pages, don't you? That would require us to unwind the stack which I think is overkill for the purpose. The most likely case is that the thread is sleeping on something inside the kld so just checking the instruction pointer would be fine. Looking for sleep addresses inside the module might make sense too. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?75604.1090348797>