On 5/19/16 2:31 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 01:57:53PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
OK, and why is thread0 needing Giant for so long?
[Below is my opinion]
It does not need Giant per se, it needs a work done to audit and turn it
off. Probably most high profile
On 5/19/16 12:12 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 09:31:47AM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
It seems like it should be the opposite, the DROP_GIANTs should be
turned into mtx_assert(&Giant, MA_NOTOWNED) as giant is removed from the
tree.
Meaning Giant should be pu
It seems like it should be the opposite, the DROP_GIANTs should be
turned into mtx_assert(&Giant, MA_NOTOWNED) as giant is removed from the
tree.
Meaning Giant should be pushed further back until it is eliminated.
Doing as this patch proposes hides that we still have callers holding
Giant whi
