Julian Elischer writes: > try this: > > in tdsignal, (kern_sig.c) > take a lock on schedlock and release it again, just around the call to > forward-signal() > > forward_signal(c4445540) at forward_signal+0x1a > tdsignal(c4445540,2,2) at tdsignal+0x182 > psignal(c443d558,2) at psignal+0x3c8 > > hopefully this will not be called with the schedlock already locked >
Following your suggestion, the appended patch appears to work. However, it does seem a bit silly, as we end up dropping and-reaquiring the sched lock quite a few times: mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock); if (td->td_state == TDS_RUNQ || td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING) { signotify(td->td_proc); /* grabs & releases sched_lock*/ #ifdef SMP if (td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING && td != curthread) { mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock); forward_signal(td); mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock); } #endif } goto out; Wouldn't it be cleaner if there was a signotify_locked () that assumed you had the sched_lock held (and was called by signotify)? Drew Index: kern_sig.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/kern_sig.c,v retrieving revision 1.171 diff -u -r1.171 kern_sig.c --- kern_sig.c 29 Jun 2002 17:26:18 -0000 1.171 +++ kern_sig.c 3 Jul 2002 01:48:35 -0000 @@ -1543,8 +1543,11 @@ td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING) { signotify(td->td_proc); #ifdef SMP - if (td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING && td != curthread) + if (td->td_state == TDS_RUNNING && td != curthread) { + mtx_lock_spin(&sched_lock); forward_signal(td); + mtx_unlock_spin(&sched_lock); + } #endif } goto out; To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message