Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:13:52 -0700 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: [Bikeshed] sigacts locking Message-ID: <20030510191352.GA225@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <3EBD4214.73CB8B7C@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.20030509175046.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030510172609.GA29039@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <3EBD4214.73CB8B7C@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 10, 2003, Terry Lambert wrote: > David Schultz wrote: > > It occurs to me that this leaves very little in the uarea. You > > have a struct pstats, which is less than 256 bytes, and you have > > the kinfo_proc, which shouldn't need to be there anyway. Perhaps > > now would also be a good time to get rid of uarea swapping and the > > associated complexity altogether. > > The swapping of the uarea doesn't really introduce a lot of > extra complexity, since all it does is allocate swappable > pages, just like the swappable pages in user space. > > Change that mode stuff out of the uarea are probably a bad > idea, since it increases KVA pressure by moving them to > wired kernel pages. No, they're already wired kernel pages that are unwired and unmapped when the process is swapped out. Moreover, there's probably *more* KVA pressure with upages swapping, because each tiny struct upages gets a 4K or larger page all to itself unless it's swapped out.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030510191352.GA225>