From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 25 17:14:20 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DCA37B401; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from duke.cs.duke.edu (duke.cs.duke.edu [152.3.140.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7E243ED1; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:14:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) Received: from grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (grasshopper.cs.duke.edu [152.3.145.30]) by duke.cs.duke.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA28552; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from gallatin@localhost) by grasshopper.cs.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.1) id gAQ1Dkj75846; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:13:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from gallatin@cs.duke.edu) From: Andrew Gallatin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15842.51914.871010.137070@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:13:46 -0500 (EST) To: Bosko Milekic Cc: Julian Elischer , Robert Watson , Luigi Rizzo , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mbuf header bloat ? In-Reply-To: <20021125160122.A75673@unixdaemons.com> References: <15840.8629.324788.887872@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <15841.17237.826666.653505@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20021125130005.A75177@unixdaemons.com> <15842.27547.385354.151541@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20021125160122.A75673@unixdaemons.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 12) "Channel Islands" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Bosko Milekic writes: > > back. We'll also need a kproc that can wake up every now and then to > > expand the pool if allocations at interrupt time failed. Or do you > > already have a mechanism for that? > > The intended mechanism is the kproc and when the allocator was first > designed and written, I had taken that into account although I have <...> > (I hope that came out OK). As you can see, the concept is very simple > and with the current infrastructure should be fairly easy to > implement. If you're wondering, I was going to do is as a 5.1 feature > at some point because I've been so swamped with other things right now > and so I do not foresee being able to do this in time for 5.0. This looks ideal. I'm looking forward to it. > It is not out of date. The code means: > > "If you've given me a counter then I'll use it otherwise I'll try to > allocate one with malloc()." Ah, duh. Thanks. I'd better start providing one in my driver then.. Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message