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

[Stephan Uphoff]

On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 16:33, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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 :-)

kern/62890 ?
Guess this one is mine now :-(

	Stephan