:Again, I think it comes down to the fact that memory allocation APIs
:typically offer choices to the consumer: block if the resources aren't
:available, or fail. My mood swings a bit back and forth as to what the
:ideal strategy would/should be at the lowest level, but I think as you
:move up the stack, the exact semantics at the bottom matter less. The
:APIs are generally clear, but it's the programming layered on top of it
:that's sloppy (alternatively: at the bottom level API, the behavior is
:well-documented, but as you move up the stack, the behavior typically
:becomes more poorly documented). While it's probably appropriate to say
:"this is a property of poor programming, or at least, programming done
:against a model that we want no longer to hold true", there's still the
:issue of cleaning up the legacy code...
:
:Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories
Oh, and I just realized... particularly in the case of 5.x, I have
noticed that the vnode and lockmgr *INTERLOCK* mutexes seem to present
a severe blocking/synchronization problem for coders. There is a lot
of code in 5.x which must obtain and hold the interlock in order to
guarentee that the lockmgr operation that is about to be executed with
LK_NOWAIT will, in fact, not wait (on the interlock). Yowzer!
I'd consider that a serious problem because it interferes directly with
the abstraction that LK_NOWAIT is supposed to provide. The problem is
even more severe due to the 5.x's other little quirks like kernel
thread preemption by non-interrupts and cpu migration.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
