Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 02:17:29 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: phk@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha busdma_machdep.c src/sys/alpha/osf1 imgact_osf1.c Message-ID: <20030121101728.GE33821@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <11798.1043141930@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <200301210856.h0L8uGF3078830@repoman.freebsd.org> <11798.1043141930@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* phk@freebsd.org <phk@freebsd.org> [030121 01:39] wrote: > In message <200301210856.h0L8uGF3078830@repoman.freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein > writes: > >alfred 2003/01/21 00:56:16 PST > > > > Log: > > Remove M_TRYWAIT/M_WAITOK/M_WAIT. Callers should use 0. > > Merge M_NOWAIT/M_DONTWAIT into a single flag M_NOWAIT. > > I'll admit that I saw your headsup, and didn't fire my reply after > you yet so it is technically a bit late to come with my input: > > Considering that we are trying to make an SMP agile kernel, I would > argue the default should be to not wait. > > If nothing else because it would also have given us a nice grep > target for places things could sleep. Not waiting isn't a real solution because then we give false reports of low memory. The code just has to be made mpsafe, that may cause some gyrations in the code that needs to allocate, but we can't just always use M_NOWAIT because not doing so is "hard". -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030121101728.GE33821>