From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Feb 27 13:40:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3CB37B402 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org ([12.232.206.8]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020227214010.UXUB2951.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@InterJet.elischer.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 21:40:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01982; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:37:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:37:16 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Terry Lambert Cc: Bosko Milekic , Jeff Roberson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slab allocator In-Reply-To: <3C7D482B.984F6FE7@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > This is ridiculous: > > 1) Kernel preemption should *never* result in CPU > migration. why not? "should not"" or "can't"? "shouldn't" can be argued either way, and "can't" is easily proven false. > > 2) Allocations at interrupt level are an extreme > special case, and should be handled as a special > case, so as not to damage the performance of the > common case. that's a whole different (design) issue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message