Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:08:56 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, jhb@freebsd.org, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <20020517060856.CF499380A@overcee.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20020516225858.D25907@stylus.haikugeek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Mini wrote:
> Peter Wemm [peter@wemm.org] wrote :
>
> > Jonathan Mini wrote:
> >
> > > The only problem he foresaw was that the init/fini functions could be cal
led
> > > by the pager daemon, but I don't see any problem there either.
> >
> > Somewhere along the way we were planning to put in code that checked for
> > things that *might* call tsleep() and trap mutexes being held. I dont know
> > if the UMA stuff calls tsleep (directly or indirectly) or not, but it was
> > my understanding that it is a Bad Idea(TM) to call anything that can tsleep
> > with a mutex held.
> >
>
> I think maybe you misunderstand. The problem isn't that the pager calls the
> uma init/fini functions, but rather that *my* init/fini functions may block
> inside the VM.
Ah. Thanks for the clarification. If that block within VM is a tsleep block
instead of a mutex block then we probably do have problems.. Assuming uma
calls your init/fini functions with some of its locks held.
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 p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020517060856.CF499380A>