Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:02:41 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Your comment re so_gencnt Message-ID: <20000917140241.O15156@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200009082354.TAA56853@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu on Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 07:54:14PM -0400 References: <20000908142322.I12231@fw.wintelcom.net> <200009082234.SAA56346@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20000908155712.L12231@fw.wintelcom.net> <200009082354.TAA56853@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> [000908 16:54] wrote: > <<On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:57:12 -0700, Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> said: > > > I'm tempted to remove it, am I missing something though? > > Yes, you're missing the entire point. > > Read the CVS log messages, and if you still don't understand, I'll > explain it to you in private. Ok, I get it now. Is it possible for you to come up with an alternate scheme for doing this or seeing about making zalloci MPsafe? I'd really rather not have to grab Giant for each socket allocated/freed. I honestly don't like the fact this change creates yet another boot time hard limit, do you have the time to possibly rethink it? One suggestion would just to go back to using the system malloc and keeping a freelist which should achive the same effect as stable storage , this could be tuned later as we should move to a slab allocator in the future anyhow. Would you be ok with a change to that effect for the time being? thanks, -Alfred 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?20000917140241.O15156>