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