Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 02:16:24 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: gibbs@plutotech.com (Justin T. Gibbs) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, gibbs@plutotech.com, bde@zeta.org.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: callouts in CAM (was Re: cvs commit:) Message-ID: <199709230216.TAA00163@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709222106.PAA02060@pluto.plutotech.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at Sep 22, 97 03:06:21 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Fair enough. Does the new scheme allow for dynamic allocation of > >callouts? I noticed that was on the TODO list for the original authors. > > Yes, but it's still not implemented. I think that we should push this > onto the client instead of attempting to do some kind of low water-mark > early allocation. In other words, allocate a fairly small initial pool > for most applications and then have systems like CAM allocate a callout > on an as-needed basis. You don't think it should be watermarked? I am a fan of low watermark based allocation scheduling (not necessarily immediate allocation, unless the pool empties). Mostly, I like this because the pools can be per CPU, and thus you don't take a global resource lock in the SMP case. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709230216.TAA00163>