Tony Arcieri wrote: >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 04:40:50PM -0500, David Schultz wrote: > > >>On Wed, Dec 15, 2004, Tony Arcieri wrote: >> >> >>>And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has rendered >>>proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called? >>> >>> >>This has very little to do with either UMA or ULE. Yes, it's >>unused, but it's still there as a reminder that it *ought* to be >>used. Unless there are still races I don't know about, it's >>probably safe to start using it again. >> >> > >Well, I'm going by the comments and implementation from kern_proc.c in HEAD: > >/* > * UMA should ensure that this function is never called. > * Freeing a proc structure would violate type stability. > */ >static void >proc_fini(void *mem, int size) >{ > > panic("proc reclaimed"); >} > >The implementation in RELENG_5 invokes a scheduler function which is no >longer present in HEAD. > when we declare teh zone for processes we tell UMA that it must never free a proc back to system memory. thus the 'fini' routine, that would be called is a page of that zone were to be returned to the system, should never be called. > >Tony Arcieri >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" > >Received on Wed Dec 15 2004 - 21:27:49 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:24 UTC