Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:12:06 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs + uma Message-ID: <4C985AC6.60906@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009202034480.23448@desktop> References: <4C93236B.4050906@freebsd.org> <4C935F56.4030903@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181221560.86826@fledge.watson.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009181135430.23448@desktop> <4C98500D.5040109@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009202034480.23448@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 21/09/2010 09:35 Jeff Roberson said the following: > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 19/09/2010 01:16 Jeff Roberson said the following: >>> Additionally we could make a last ditch flush mechanism that runs on each cpu in >> >> How would you qualify a "last ditch" trigger? >> Would this be called from "standard" vm_lowmem look or would there be some extra >> check for even more severe memory condition? > > If lowmem does not make enough progress to improve the condition. Do we have a good way to detect that? I see that currently vm_lowmem is always invoked with argument value of zero. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C985AC6.60906>