Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 22:55:26 -0700 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: "Jeff Roberson" <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: separating out memory checks from INVARIANTS Message-ID: <b1fa29170803152255g402d08abo1b0711176f55d763@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080315195328.V910@desktop> References: <b1fa29170803152244k5f31065dt135b605a54a4d0da@mail.gmail.com> <20080315195328.V910@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Mar 2008, Kip Macy wrote: > > > I find that the serialization of memory allocation frequently hides > > race conditions. I would like to, at the very least, add an option to > > disable the memory checks if not make the memory checks a completely > > separate option. My knee jerk reaction to avoiding bikesheds is to > > simply add it to my own tree and forget about it. However, this has > > come up often enough that I feel that it warrants consideration. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > One other option that I have frequently considered is to convert UMA from > using an array of bytes to using bitfields to represent the free space in > a slab. Then you could use atomics to update the required information. > It'd be a bit of work. Maybe a good SoC? :) Would it make it possible to do memory allocation without holding a lock in the M_NOWAIT case? -Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170803152255g402d08abo1b0711176f55d763>