From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 14 19:33:12 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E74D3CE; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:33:12 +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 666DD2B4; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:33:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Alfreds-MacBook-Pro-9.local (unknown [64.25.27.130]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26D281A3CE7; Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:33:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50F45D74.7000309@mu.org> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:33:08 -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: John Baldwin Subject: Re: svn commit: r243631 - in head/sys: kern sys References: <201211272119.qARLJxXV061083@svn.freebsd.org> <50F41F8C.5030900@freebsd.org> <50F4297F.8050708@FreeBSD.org> <201301141255.46994.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201301141255.46994.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:41:49 +0000 Cc: Adrian Chadd , src-committers@freebsd.org, Andre Oppermann , Alan Cox , "Jayachandran C." , Alexander Motin , Oleksandr Tymoshenko , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:33:12 -0000 On 1/14/13 12:55 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday, January 14, 2013 10:51:27 am Alexander Motin wrote: >> As I've actually written, there are two different things: >> ncallout -- number of preallocated callout structures for purposes of >> timeout() calls. That is a legacy API that is probably not very much >> used now, so that value don't need to be too big. But that allocation is >> static and if it will ever be exhausted system will panic. That is why >> it was set quite high. The right way now would be to analyze where that >> API is still used and estimate the really required number. > FYI, I have slowly been working through the tree fixing users of timeout() > to use callout_*() instead. > We would surely be in a bad place had you not taken so much time to fix nearly all those instances. It is very much appreciated. -Alfred