Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd)

From: Kris Kennaway <kris_at_obsecurity.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:34:49 -0800
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:32:14PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Scott Long wrote:
> > 
>  > I'm definitely not against these fixes going into RELENG_5, but I would
> > > like to see some significant testing be applied to them in HEAD first,
> > > especially to changes that are not confined to just sched_ule.c (and
> > > sched_4bsd.c).
> > 
> > Can I commit changes that are restricted to sched_ule.c?  It certainly
> > can't make things any worse than they are on RELENG_5 now.  We can leave
> > the #error in until it's really tested on head.  That way only people who
> > remove that line of code can use it.
> 
> The changes to kern_sig.c are also necessary to ensure the stability of
> the ULE scheduler, correct?  I guess I'll just keep running with a kernel
> build with RELENG_5 sources and sched_ule.c, kern_switch.c, and 
> kern_sig.c from head.
> 
> And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has rendered
> proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called?

FYI, after I updated an SMP machine (with 4BSD) yesterday it got into
a state where all processes were sleeping and the only running
processes were the idle tasks, but nothing was apparently holding a
lock.  This is just after the most recent commit to kern_sig.c, so
it's one possible candidate for the cause.  I backed out this change,
and so far it hasn't recurred.

Kris

Received on Wed Dec 15 2004 - 20:34:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:24 UTC