From owner-freebsd-net Wed Mar 20 13:12:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B843537B41D for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:12:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2KLCRt49767; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:27 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. In-Reply-To: <20020320210246.GN455@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: <20020320160904.W41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > Currently it means, if I can't get KVA or a page to back it, return NULL. > > It just stops operations that would REALLY block. The old code reserved > > the KVA up front and just found a page at interrupt time. > > Bottom line, will the semantics change? > > What it sounds like is that if things aren't "just right" (which may > be the majority of times) we may fail earlier than the old code would, > is this true? > > Basically, what changes semantically because of your change? > The short answer is, no we won't fail any earlier. The reason the KVA was reserved before was so that you wouldn't have to grab a lock at interrupt time to do allocations. Now we can grab locks, we just can't msleep. This makes things a lot simpler. Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message