cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd)

[Julian Elischer]

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 :-)

>
>  
>