From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 24 18:13: 8 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5082637B401 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB1143FD7 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:13:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (athlon.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.3]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1P2CY1o045159; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h1P2CYWk001868; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by athlon.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id h1P2CY0j001867; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:12:34 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Garance A Drosihn Cc: "M. Warner Losh" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Proposed new sysctl MIB nodes Message-ID: <20030225021234.GA1835@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030224.174742.21056478.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030225005912.GA1583@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i 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 Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 08:54:03PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > I'd like to propose new HW_PHYSPAGES and HW_USERPAGES MIB nodes > > > that return the same information, but in a 32-bit page count, > > > instead. The implementation is left as an exercise to the reader. > > > I just want to get consensus on the names, so that I can tell > > > the GCC people about it, and have it work on all the BSD > > > platforms (as their current sysctl code does). > > > >What's the reason to not use a 64-bit entity whether it represents > >bytes or pages? > > > >Or to be more presice, an integral entity that can be used to cast > >to from a pointer without data loss? > > Jason first asked his question on the bsd-api mailing list (which > hopefully has people from all the main BSD's on it). In a later > message on that mailing list, he replied to a similar question: > > > How about simply having a total memory count in quads > > instead? That way we won't run out when we pass 2^48 > > or 49th bytes in 10 or 15 years. > > Ok, a u_quad (page count) it is. This isn't really a similar question. On 64-bit machines it's rather odd to use a 32-bit entity to hold the amount of memory. The most logical step is to make it a 64-bit entity, not to increase the granularity. Also, why a sysctl to get the total amount of memory in the box. Isn't getrlimit a much better approach to tune process behaviour? -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message