From owner-cvs-all Mon Dec 3 19:23:22 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from technokratis.com (modemcable099.144-201-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.144.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5AF37B417; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:23:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by technokratis.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) id fB43N4j02755; Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:23:04 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:23:03 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c Message-ID: <20011203222303.A2690@technokratis.com> References: <200112040213.fB42DBl08877@freefall.freebsd.org> <20011203214418.A87350@technokratis.com> <20011203184737.D48755@iguana.aciri.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011203184737.D48755@iguana.aciri.org>; from luigi@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:47:37PM -0800 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 06:47:37PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 09:44:18PM -0500, Bosko Milekic wrote: > > > > > > Luigi, > > > > Did you see my original reply to the corresponding commit you made > > to -CURRENT? > > yes (but i could not react due to @home being shut down). > > It seemed to me that you mostly agreed on the change, perhaps > asking a removal of the part in vm/vm_kern.c which now > becomes redundant. Am I correct ? Actually, I was vouching for the removal of the change(s) in subr_mbuf.c for two reasons: 1. They can be mis-leading, i.e. the solution in that case is rarely to increase mbuf_map and clust_map sizes (at this point, the failure may actually be due to malloc() failing to allocate a bucket or lack of RAM, not virtual address space in mbuf and clust maps). 2. The printf() in vm/vm_kern.c should more than cover it. Even that one (the one in vm/vm_kern.c) doesn't really need to be rate limited, because mb_alloc() is smart enough to figure out that if it fails allocating with kmem_malloc() when the allocation is with M_WAITOK, that it is due to lack of virtual address space in either mbuf_map or clust_map and will stop calling kmem_malloc() for the given map any more -- but if you really want you can leave the one in vm/vm_kern.c there--- it doesn't really bother me as much as the first one). As for -STABLE, it may have more validity, I haven't looked yet. > cheers > luigi Cheers, -- Bosko Milekic bmilekic@technokratis.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message