is empty besides calling switch_exit(). So, rename switch_exit() to
cpu_exit() and modify the routine to call lwp_exit2() direct.
This saves couple cycles on the exit path.
process context ('reaper').
From within the exiting process context:
* deactivate pmap and free vmspace while we can still block
* introduce MD cpu_lwp_free() - this cleans all MD-specific context (such
as FPU state), and is the last potentially blocking operation;
all of cpu_wait(), and most of cpu_exit(), is now folded into cpu_lwp_free()
* process is now immediatelly marked as zombie and made available for pickup
by parent; the remaining last lwp continues the exit as fully detached
* MI (rather than MD) code bumps uvmexp.swtch, cpu_exit() is now same
for both 'process' and 'lwp' exit
uvm_lwp_exit() is modified to never block; the u-area memory is now
always just linked to the list of available u-areas. Introduce (blocking)
uvm_uarea_drain(), which is called to release the excessive u-area memory;
this is called by parent within wait4(), or by pagedaemon on memory shortage.
uvm_uarea_free() is now private function within uvm_glue.c.
MD process/lwp exit code now always calls lwp_exit2() immediatelly after
switching away from the exiting lwp.
g/c now unneeded routines and variables, including the reaper kernel thread
rf_DecrAccessesCountState wasn't in the correct spot in
RF_AccessState_e. Following up on that has resulted in one other
correction. Changing orderings of these states is tricky, and
shouldn't be attempted without some thorough analysis. For the
changes committed, the following analysis is offerred:
1) RAIDframe uses a little state machine to take care of building,
executing, and processing the DAGs used to direct IO.
2) The rf_DecrAccessesCountState state is handled by the function
rf_State_DecrAccessCount(). The purpose of this state is to
decrement the number of "accesses-in-flight".
3) rf_Cleanup_State is handled by rf_State_Cleanup(). Its job is to
do general cleanup of DAG arrays and any stripe locks.
4) DefaultStates[] in rf_layout.c indicates that the right spot
for rf_DecrAccessesCountState is just before rf_Cleanup_State.
Analysis of code for both states indicates that the order doesn't
matter too much, although rf_State_DecrAccessCount() should probably
take place *after* rf_State_Cleanup() to be more correct.
5) Comments in rf_State_ProcessDAG() indicates that the next state
should be rf_Cleanup_State. However: it attempts to get there by using
desc->state++;
which actually takes it to just rf_DecrAccessesCountState! This turned
out to be OK before, since rf_Cleanup_State would follow right after,
and all would be taken careof (albeit in arguably the "less correct"
order).
6) With the current ordering, if we head directly to rf_Cleanup_State
(as we do, for example, if multiple components fail in a RAID 5 set),
then we'll actually miss going trough rf_DecrAccessesCountState), and
could end up never being able to reach quiescence! Perhaps not too
big of a deal, given that the RAID set is pretty much toast by that
point at which such a drastic state change happens, but might as well
have this correct.
The changes made are:
1) Since having rf_State_DecrAccessCount() come after
rf_State_Cleanup() is just fine, change rf_layout.c to reflect that
rf_DecrAccessesCountState comes after rf_Cleanup_State (i.e. they swap
positions in the state list). This means that going to
rf_Cleanup_State after bailing on a failed DAG access will do all the
right things -- the state will get cleaned up, and then the access
counts will get decremented properly. The comment in
rf_State_ProcessDAG() is now actually correct -- the next state *will*
be rf_Cleanup_State.
2) Move rf_DecrAccessesCountState in RF_AccessState_e to just after
rf_CleanupState. This puts RF_AccessState_e in sync with
DefaultStates[]. Fortunately, these states are rarely referred to by
name, and so this change ends up being mostly cosmetic -- it really
only fixes cleanup behaviour for the recent "Failed to create a DAG"
changes.
with flow control being applied. It is simpler and no more problematic to
accept the data and drop it if we hit a resource limit than to expect the
Bluetooth device to do anything about it (which it won't).
kleink