From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Jan 23  1:13:27 2003
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C003237B401; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EEAD543EB2; Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:13:25 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost)
	by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0N9DFO33883;
	Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:13:15 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:13:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>, <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>,
	<hsu@FreeBSD.ORG>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step
In-Reply-To: <20030123064828.GY42333@elvis.mu.org>
Message-ID: <20030123041209.L2966-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> > : When we have proper priority inheritance and low memory callbacks
> > : then we will not have to worry about latency.
> >
> > I'm interest in this.  Do you have references that explain what you'd
> > have in mind?
>
> It would take some work, but the idea being that any lock we have
> in the kernel needs an "owner" slot so that if a high priority
> thread blocks on it we loan its prio to the thread that holds
> the lock.
>
> The low memory callback is like what we have with mbufs, such
> that subsystems can register a callback that will be called when
> the system is low on resources so that it can toss out data it
> might not need.
>

We have an event now when we're running low on memory.  We could probably
use one more when we're running low on KVA.  That might make more sense.

Cheers,
Jeff


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message