Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:36:18 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slab allocator update Message-ID: <200203012036.g21KaIs46295@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202272300590.4018-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Jeff Roberson wrote:
:
:>
:> 1) Fix the last lock order reversal.
:> 2) Fixup the statistics for uma and malloc.
:> 3) Convince people to test it.
:> 4) Commit.
:
:Please try integrate it in such a form that both new and old can be
:compiled in with a config option.
:(for a while)
:
:> 5) Work on converting everything to uma_* interfaces, and adding
:> initializers.
:
:Do lots of testingto prove that it's an improvement.
I think it only needs to have 'similar' performance to be an
improvement, since the eventual goal is to collapse the
kernel malloc and zalloc subsytems into one.
Right now we have rather serious issues with KVM exhaustion. The
fact that the existing kernel malloc uses kmem_map and zalloc uses
kernel_map for expansion, and that none of the memory is ever returned,
is one of the primary culprits. I would happy if that mess were
consolidated into one universal allocation mechanism capable of
returning memory to the system even if it meant a slight loss in
performance.
I'm not sure I agree with an integration that tries to keep the
old mechanisms alive. If it's easy to do, then sure. But otherwise
we should just grin and bear it.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203012036.g21KaIs46295>