[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: threads/89262: [kernel] [patch] multi-threaded process hangs in kernel in fork()
- To: freebsd-threads_(_at_)_FreeBSD_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: threads/89262: [kernel] [patch] multi-threaded process hangs in kernel in fork()
- From: David Xu <davidxu_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 05:00:29 GMT
- Cc:
- Reply-to: David Xu <davidxu_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org>
The following reply was made to PR threads/89262; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Xu <davidxu_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org>
Cc: bug-followup_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org, garry_(_at_)_networkphysics_(_dot_)_com
Subject: Re: threads/89262: [kernel] [patch] multi-threaded process hangs
in kernel in fork()
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:51:56 +0800
John Baldwin wrote:
> Only thing I would prefer is that you keep sleepq_catch_signals() but make it
> an internal function that sleepq_waitsig() and sleepq_timed_waitsig() call
> before sleepq_switch() so that sleepq_switch() doesn't get so long. Also, it
> would be good. Also, in sleepq_switch() you are using sleepq_release() and
> sleepq_lock() even though you already have a sleepqueue_chain pointer, and
> you do mtx operations on sc->sc_lock explicitly in some other places. It
> would be best to consistently just do mutex ops on sc->sc_lock instead of
> redoing the hash-lookup several times.
>
patch updated:
http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/patch/slpq_susp5.patch
_______________________________________________
freebsd-threads_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"
Visit your host, monkey.org