On Wednesday 15 December 2004 05:27 pm, Julian Elischer wrote: > 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. Why are struct procs forced to be type-stable? -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Thu Jan 06 2005 - 20:21:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:25 UTC