On Tue, 22 May 2001 21:58:10 +0900,
Seigo Tanimura <tanimura> said:
Seigo> On Tue, 22 May 2001 04:48:38 -0700 (PDT),
Seigo> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
John> On 22-May-01 Seigo Tanimura wrote:
>>> For now, p_mtx protects p_pgrp in struct proc. This is quite
>>> troublesome for the following reason:
John> Err, it doesn't really. It's mostly undecided at this point. Also, have you
John> looked at the BSD/OS code on builder? They have process groups and sessions
John> already locked not using global locks but using per-data structure locks.
Seigo> If you do not protect both p_pgrp and p_pglist in struct proc by an
Seigo> identical lock, you end up with breaking either setpgid(2) or kill(2)
Seigo> for a process group. The following scenario depicts an example of the
BSD/OS seems to solve that problem by having p_session in struct
proc, and protecting p_pgrp by the mutex of both a process and a
session. Then you have to lock a session as well as a process prior to
reading p_pgrp, as I locked proctree_lock.
I chose proctree_lock because deleting a process group may call
funsetown(), which calls free(9). Maybe we can reconsider protecting
by a session lock when free(9) becomes not to lock lockmgr.
Seigo Tanimura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message