Terry Lambert wrote: > Peter Wemm wrote: > > The bug is that things are calling things like malloc with M_WAITOK when > > waiting is explicitly not allowed. There are other functions that can > > tsleep as well that we have not added checks for yet, so this is likely > > just the tip of the iceberg. :-( > > Why is this a problem? M_WAITOK does not mean that it will wait > indefinitely, even though you'd think it would mean that, given > the name... > > I think _sleeping_ is a problem, but allocation with M_WAITOK > shouldn't be, given it's strange definition of "waiting". This > is one of those hacks that John Baldwin was talking about earlier...
As you said, _sleeping_ is the problem. M_WAITOK means "you may sleep if you like". ie: it is a time bomb waiting for the right low memory condition which will then explode with a 100% authentic crash or lock up. Pretend it said M_SLEEPOK instead of M_WAITOK. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
