From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 19 06:55:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11BAF1065672; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:55:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48598FC12; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id JAA28414; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:55:31 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1P866d-0000W9-3r; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:55:31 +0300 Message-ID: <4CBD40E2.7030507@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:55:30 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100918 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Giovanni Trematerra References: <4C9B9B9C.6000807@freebsd.org> <4CBBEBDF.3060905@freebsd.org> <4CBC5719.1020807@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic in uma_startup for many-core amd64 system X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:55:34 -0000 on 19/10/2010 00:01 Giovanni Trematerra said the following: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> Again, not sure if I follow you, I don't see relation between per-cpu caches and >> dynamic slab size. > > Your patch seems just a work around about initial slab size where the > keg is backed. Well, setting aside my confusion with the terminology - yes, the patch is just that, and precisely because I only tried to solve that particular problem. > Having dynamic slab sizes would allow to have the keg backed on a larger slab > without going OFFPAGE. I agree in principle. But without seeing code that implements that I can't guess if it would really be more efficient or more maintainable, i.e. more useful in general. Still a very good idea. -- Andriy Gapon