From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 11 22:58:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.chesapeake.net (chesapeake.net [205.130.220.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510D037B416 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jroberson@localhost) by mail.chesapeake.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3C5wAN67249; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:58:11 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:58:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeff Roberson To: Peter Wemm Cc: Wes Peters , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Subject: Re: Removing limits from malloc(9) In-Reply-To: <20020411110233.D25C739EA@overcee.wemm.org> Message-ID: <20020412015551.M42805-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > Personally, I'd be happy with counts being done per-cpu (to avoid > contention) and aggregated periodically (eg: at vmstat -m time). And to > hell with the limits. But that's just me. :-) > This is more along the lines of what I was looking for. I don't like the limits but I wasn't sure if anyone found them to be useful. So far I have heard 2 votes for getting rid of limits, and no votes for keeping them. Would anyone else care to vote? Thanks, Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message