In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John-Mark Gurney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Warner Losh wrote this message on Thu, May 25, 2006 at 22:06 -0600:
: > > In the past, I've been against mandating that callouts/timeouts/generic
: > > taskqueues should not be allowed to sleep. However, after looking over
: > > the history of this problem as well as others, it seems that it's just
: > > too easy for driver authors to make bad assumptions and wind up with a
: > > priority inversion/deadlock like this. It would be relatively trivial
: > > to mark these contexts as being non-sleepable and have the msleep code
: > > enforce it, like is done with ithreads. What do you think? Anyways,
: > > thanks for looking at this and fixing it.
: >
: > At the very least, we should mandate that timeouts are a non-sleepable
: > event. Sleeping just doesn't work there. taskqueues, I'm less sure
: > of, since short sleeps there work, but do degrade performance. I like
: > this idea.
:
: People worried about things like this should create their own thread
: for their taskqueue.. It's quite easy (simple macro declaration), and
: I did that for handling kq in kq...
The problem isn't people that are worried about these things... It is
those that don't worry about them..
Warner
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
