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 Message-ID: <20030123041209.L2966-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20030123064828.GY42333@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030123041209.L2966-100000>