Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:27 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Getting rid of maxsockets. Message-ID: <20020320160904.W41335-100000@mail.chesapeake.net> In-Reply-To: <20020320210246.GN455@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > Currently it means, if I can't get KVA or a page to back it, return NULL. > > It just stops operations that would REALLY block. The old code reserved > > the KVA up front and just found a page at interrupt time. > > Bottom line, will the semantics change? > > What it sounds like is that if things aren't "just right" (which may > be the majority of times) we may fail earlier than the old code would, > is this true? > > Basically, what changes semantically because of your change? > The short answer is, no we won't fail any earlier. The reason the KVA was reserved before was so that you wouldn't have to grab a lock at interrupt time to do allocations. Now we can grab locks, we just can't msleep. This makes things a lot simpler. Jeff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020320160904.W41335-100000>