Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 15:03:12 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: dima@xyzzy.machaon.ru (Dmitry Khrustalev) Cc: peter@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG, dima@bog.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/nfs nfs.h nfs_node.c nfs_nqlease.c nfs_subs.c nfs_vfsops.c Message-ID: <199805242003.PAA02028@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199805241805.WAA00993@xyzzy.machaon.ru> from Dmitry Khrustalev at "May 24, 98 10:05:50 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dmitry Khrustalev said: > I'm not sure this is a good idea. Memory allocated from zone is never returned > to the system. There could be periods of high NFS activity and periods of no > NFS activity at all when this allocation of wired kernel memory would be > wasted. > The malloc pool only grows (in the case of sub-page size allocations) also. The difference is that the zone pool is managed per data item type, while the malloc pool is managed per size. There IS a tradeoff, but I have found that the lossage of using zone vs. malloc is small in most cases. One advantage of zone is that the allocation is very very fast, even with stats gathering. Additionally, there is less internal fragmentation. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805242003.PAA02028>