Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 19:30:42 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> Cc: alpha@FreeBSD.ORG, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: on the same note.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211101930270.63746-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <3DCF1DD7.B472A23A@imimic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Alan L. Cox wrote: > Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > Err, well, this *is* in vm object allocation... > > > > > > Ah, I see what you're talking about now. Until the vm object has been > > > returned by the allocation routine it is not shared data. The > > > generation count is used to detect changes in the list of resident pages > > > by sleeping processes, not to detect that the same storage is being > > > recycled for a new object. > > > > > > > Well, if this is the case, the allocator shouldn't be just incrementing > > it, should it? Shouldn't it always start at zero? > > Basically, yes. This increment has existed for almost five years. At > this point, it only exists by inertia. DTRT then - at least remove the 'atomic XXX?' comment. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" 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.4.21.0211101930270.63746-100000>