Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:26:00 +0100
From:      Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_condvar.c kern_synch.c src/sys/sys proc.h
Message-ID:  <20010822012600.B17225@tao.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20010821134601.J81307@elvis.mu.org>; from bright@mu.org on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:46:01PM -0500
References:  <200108211842.f7LIgkp03186@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010821134601.J81307@elvis.mu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--DKU6Jbt7q3WqK7+M
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:46:01PM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> [010821 13:42] wrote:
> > jhb         2001/08/21 11:42:46 PDT
> >=20
> >   Modified files:
> >     sys/kern             kern_condvar.c kern_synch.c=20
> >     sys/sys              proc.h=20
> >   Log:
> >   - Fix a bug in the previous workaround for the tsleep/endtsleep race.
> >     callout_stop() would fail in two cases:
> >       1) The timeout was currently executing, and
> >       2) The timeout had already executed.
> >     We only needed to work around the race for 1).  We caught some inst=
ances
> >     of 2) via the PS_TIMEOUT flag, however, if endtsleep() fired after =
the
> >     process had been woken up but before it had resumed execution,
> >     PS_TIMEOUT would not be set, but callout_stop() would fail, so we
> >     would block the process until endtsleep() resumed it.  Except that
> >     endtsleep() had already run and couldn't resume it.  This adds a ne=
w flag
> >     PS_TIMOFAIL to indicate the case of 2) when PS_TIMEOUT isn't set.
> >   - Implement this race fix for condition variables as well.
>=20
> How likely are these sort of fixes going to be able to help
> the perceived instability of -current?  Is -current noticeably
> unstable or do we just have the usual crowd of people screaming
> sort of like what was going on a couple of months ago.

No - current is definitely having a problem at the moment.  That
said my normal machine has 256 mb of memory and my loaner machine
only has 64 mb so it's possible that I'd not noticed the current
set of problems that I've got before (documented in recent days on
the current mailing list).

Joe

--DKU6Jbt7q3WqK7+M
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjuC/BcACgkQXVIcjOaxUBaZpQCcDSIgxSFt7CflGFU4Ej5p+CB4
HVYAn0NJCnDrGPx7gDvHZzTk7htJB9iS
=AM+A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--DKU6Jbt7q3WqK7+M--

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010822012600.B17225>