John Baldwin wrote: >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? > I have forgotten.. but they did.. Peter also knew at one stage and he too has forgotten :-) > > >Received on Thu Jan 06 2005 - 20:33:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:25 UTC