The lazy xnfree mechanism turned out to be too lazy: Just run some
testsuite program and what /proc/xenomai/heap - it will not reach the
level it has on freshly booted box.
The reason is that TCBs of threads that are released over the ROOT
thread will only get purged after the next
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1236,6 +1236,9 @@ void xnpod_delete_thread(xnthread_t *thr
xnthread_cleanup_tcb(thread);
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1236,6 +1236,9 @@ void xnpod_delete_thread(xnthread_t *thr
xnthread_cleanup_tcb(thread);
xnarch_finalize_no_switch(xnthread_archtcb(thread));
+
+ if
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1236,6 +1236,9 @@ void xnpod_delete_thread(xnthread_t *thr
xnthread_cleanup_tcb(thread);
xnarch_finalize_no_switch(xnthread_archtcb(thread));
+
+
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1236,6 +1236,9 @@ void xnpod_delete_thread(xnthread_t *thr
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1236,6 +1236,9 @@ void xnpod_delete_thread(xnthread_t *thr
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM,
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan Kiszka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
No, it is supposed to work. The sched-zombie points to this zombie,
which is finalized in xnpod_finish_unlocked_switch
OK. However, I would still prefer to get xnfreesync out of the
