From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 13 18:06:32 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04EA4F0C; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:06:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16961DF; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (unknown [207.238.187.242]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E2691A3C52; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:06:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50F2F79C.7040109@mu.org> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 13:06:20 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: svn commit: r243631 - in head/sys: kern sys References: <201211272119.qARLJxXV061083@svn.freebsd.org> <50C1BC90.90106@freebsd.org> <50C25A27.4060007@bluezbox.com> <50C26331.6030504@freebsd.org> <50C26AE9.4020600@bluezbox.com> <50C3A3D3.9000804@freebsd.org> <50C3AF72.4010902@rice.edu> <330405A1-312A-45A5-BB86-4969478D8BBD@bluezbox.com> <50D03E83.8060908@rice.edu> <50DD081E.8000409@bluezbox.com> <50EB1841.5030006@bluezbox.com> <50EB22D2.6090103@rice.edu> <50EB415F.8020405@freebsd.org> <50F04FE5.7010406@rice.edu> <50F1BD69.4060104@mu.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann , Alan Cox , "Jayachandran C." , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Oleksandr Tymoshenko , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:06:32 -0000 On 1/12/13 10:32 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 12 January 2013 11:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >> I'm not sure if regressing to the waterfall method of development is a good >> idea at this point. >> >> I see a light at the end of the tunnel and we to continue to just handle >> these minor corner cases as we progress. >> >> If we move to a model where a minor bug is grounds to completely remove >> helpful code then nothing will ever get done. >> > Allocating 512MB worth of callwheels on a 16GB MIPS machine is a > little silly, don't you think? > > That suggests to me that the extent of which maxfiles/maxusers/etc > percolates the codebase wasn't totally understood by those who wish to > change it. > > I'd rather see some more investigative work into outlining things that > need fixing and start fixing those, rather than "just change stuff and > fix whatever issues creep up." > > I kinda hope we all understand what we're working on in the kernel a > little better than that. Cool! I'm glad people are now aware of the callwheel allocation being insane with large maxusers. I saw this about a month ago (if not longer), but since there were half a dozen people calling me an imbecile who hadn't really yet read the code I didn't want to inflame them more by fixing that with "a hack". (actually a simple fix). A simple fix is to clamp callwheel size to the previous result of a maxusers of 384 and call it a day. However the simplicity of that approach would probably inflame too many feelings so I am unsure as how to proceed. Any ideas? -Alfred