Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 11:43:04 -0700 From: Jonathan Mini <mini@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 10740 for review Message-ID: <20020503114304.D81190@stylus.haikugeek.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20020503133003.jhb@FreeBSD.org>; from jhb@FreeBSD.org on Fri, May 03, 2002 at 01:30:03PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0205031008210.83245-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <XFMail.20020503133003.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin [jhb@FreeBSD.org] wrote : > > On 03-May-2002 Julian Elischer wrote: > > to some extent I agree with you but realise that all tehuma stuff has > > occured since young Edith dorothy was born.. :-) > > (i.e the patches predate uma) I agree with John here, and I think the UMA stuff is the right way to do it. These changes aren't hard. I can do them now. > I realize that, I just think that the goal should be to eliminate the > thread free-list in favor of letting uma do its job, but that to avoid > any need to malloc in msleep, we instead let each KSE always have a > spare "hot" thread for P_KSE processes and that when it uses the hot > thread to do an upcall, the first act of the new thread will be to > allocate a new hot spare. This sounds good to me as well. -- Jonathan Mini <mini@freebsd.org> http://www.haikugeek.com "He who is not aware of his ignorance will be only misled by his knowledge." -- Richard Whatley To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020503114304.D81190>