Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:02:46 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. Message-ID: <20020320210246.GN455@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20020320152654.J41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <20020320194111.GK455@elvis.mu.org> <20020320152654.J41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> [020320 12:29] wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > That depends on what this implies. :) > > > > Does it mean that when giving M_NOWAIT there's a chance it may fail > > more often than the old zone allocator? Meaning does M_NOWAIT mean > > "only allocate from cache" or do you do close to the same thing that > > the zone allocator does except in a more flexible manner? > > > > Sorry if the question is niave, I'm not extremely familiar with the > > previous and current code. > > > > Currently it means, if I can't get KVA or a page to back it, return NULL. > It just stops operations that would REALLY block. The old code reserved > the KVA up front and just found a page at interrupt time. Bottom line, will the semantics change? What it sounds like is that if things aren't "just right" (which may be the majority of times) we may fail earlier than the old code would, is this true? Basically, what changes semantically because of your change? -- -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.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020320210246.GN455>