Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:34:57 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: doconnor@gsoft.com.au Cc: mike@smith.net.au, dag-erli@ifi.uio.no, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: File I/O in kernel land (was: Re: 2nd warning: 2.2.6 BETA begins in 10 days!) Message-ID: <199801271934.NAA06179@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199801270651.RAA29592@cain.gsoft.com.au> (doconnor@gsoft.com.au) References: <199801270651.RAA29592@cain.gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> My real concern is holding on to lots of dynamically allocated kernel >> memory, which is something I can't see getting around without the >> screen saver doing file I/O. In Linux, dynamic kernel memory was a >> precious resource. Is it not so in FreeBSD? > Umm, well wouldn't it be allocated in either case? > You either load it in the kernel, or you load it in user land, and > then copy it to the kernel.. You still take kernel memory to do it. In Linux (when I was hacking it), dynamically allocated kernel memory was on the `very precious' scale, as opposed to statically allocated memory, which was on the `precious' scale. My point was that without having the size of the image ahead of time, then you would always need to dynamically allocate memory, and I was looking for a way to use the vnode instead, and let the I/O subsystem buffer everything as needed. Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801271934.NAA06179>