Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:48:27 -0400 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softdep panic due to blocked malloc (with traceback) Message-ID: <3A0894CB.126EE64E@vangelderen.org> References: <26624.973626585@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message <200011071941.eA7JfZX81819@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes:
> >:We are not talking garbage collection, we are talking dumping the
> >:vfs namecache for instance.
> >:
> >:--
> >:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> >
> > Yes, but think a minute: How does that prevent a low memory deadlock?
> > The answer is not "because it frees up some pages" ... what if you've
> > already freed up all the namecache pages you can and some process
> > continues to eat memory, and now you have none left to free?
>
> Matt,
>
> I'll just rest the case here. I can see from the swiftness of your
> replies that you are in "everything phk says is wrong by definition"
> mode right now. Think about it and we can discuss it in a couple
> of weeks time maybe.
It seems that Matt simply assumes that the event handler chain
was proposed to help in the prevention of system deadlock. Given
this context he argues that it won't help solve the problem
(deadlock) he is trying to solve.
I think Matt may have misinterpreted your initial request for a
'the event handler chain is needed to solve the problem' instead
of a 'nice-to-have-an-event-handler' request. His fault, maybe...
Of course, given the history the two of you have, you could have
pro-actively elaborated a bit in your request so as to prevent
this kind of miscommunication altogether. You didn't, no problem
because:
You could have extracted Matts wrong assumption from his subsequent
emails (it's quite blatantly obvious) and rectified it thereby
preventing this escalation altogether. You choose to not do so
and for that reason Matt continues to argue that the even handlers
won't help preventing system deadlock. He is quite correct.
I can't see how the swiftness of his replies would neccessarily
indicate that Matt is in 'everything phk says is wrong..."-mode.
And even if he is, you could have steered the discussion in a
more productive direction.
Come to think of it, I actually think it's the other way around
here: had you been slightly less swift in sending
<26296.973625216@critter> you could have actually elaborated a bit
about the reasoning behind your request (i.e. write more than two
lines in that email) and have prevented this escalation.
I think you switched to "whatever Matt mails he is always in
"everything phk says is wrong by definition""-mode and you are
blaming Matt for that. The pot calling the kettle black?
--
Jeroen C. van Gelderen o _ _ _
jeroen@vangelderen.org _o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_)
_< \_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/
(_)>(_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A0894CB.126EE64E>