Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 12:17:52 -0500 From: "Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Alfred Perlstein" <bright@sneakerz.org> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>, Mike Silbersack <silby@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, jlemon@FreeBSD.ORG, bmilekic@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_input.c tcp_output.c tcp_subr.c tcp_timer.c tcp_usrreq.c tcp_var.h Message-ID: <20010626121752.L64836@sneakerz.org> In-Reply-To: <200106261647.f5QGlRr24342@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 09:47:27AM -0700 References: <200106242141.f5OLfc176777@green.bikeshed.org> <200106261647.f5QGlRr24342@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> [010626 11:47] wrote: > : > :That's pretty pointless; M_ZERO is _supposed_ to eventually be providing > :pre-zeroed memory, which should remove that bzero in the general case, > :anyway. > : > > * We can give up on trying to optimize bzero() within malloc() and > instead concentrate on giving malloc() a pre-zeroing feature, which > is where malloc()'s M_ZERO flag was heading in the first place. > > Either way, I don't think this has much to do with the inline bzero()ing > code that I am proposing. Agreed, wrt idle zeroing of data, the problem that I see is that it seems that idleproc may not aquire mutexes, at least that's the impression I get from the SMP team (jhb and crew). I feel that idleproc should at least be able to trylock if we're going to make any use of it at all. Is this planned or possible? -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010626121752.L64836>