Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:50:18 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Neel Natu <neel@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r260898 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <52E0AD9A.2000704@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <0F26E4E1-5D75-413E-B92B-AA7092B87D89@FreeBSD.org> References: <201401200159.s0K1xa5X012123@svn.freebsd.org> <EA6A69A5-0620-4BF9-9871-268C416D2F58@felyko.com> <1536225.gsjt6oXMt2@pippin.baldwin.cx> <CAJ-VmokgEr1THSfusi3h_3rKaQw4K=MxCOXhFWSB--Lj%2BOB6%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <0F26E4E1-5D75-413E-B92B-AA7092B87D89@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/22/14, 8:34 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> .. Make it be an offset into the table rather than a pointer, then we can do dirty rcu style hacks to just replace and grow the table as we need more memory. >> >> Don't we have a standard way to pull memory from the top of the physmem area early on for allocations like this? > Perhaps a bit overkill for this problem? Probably.. I keep thinking we should just increase the size by 2x but allow platforms to override. for "SMALL". -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52E0AD9A.2000704>