Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:37:03 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 11120 for review Message-ID: <XFMail.20020518233703.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20020518233041.X49505-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19-May-2002 Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >> >> Yes, having init() called w/o it would be good since I think init() is >> the one that can actually block. For threads the init/fini setup >> and teardown thread stacks and the actual operation to do a thread stack >> teardown/setup can block so we need to not hold any locks when we do >> that. >> > > Why are we blocking in init? Is this a tsleep() block or short term lock > block? It may add a few lock/unlock calls to uma but that should be ok > since it's on a per slab basis. We are allocating a thread stack to attach to the thread structures (IIRC). Jonathan would know the details better. Perhaps we need a slightly different paradigm where we use a zone of thread stacks the init and fini of thread structures use, but I'm not sure. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ 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?XFMail.20020518233703.jhb>