On 3/11/21 7:35 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
And I dislike this. It is yet another case of introducing consumer-specific
logic into core. Isn't netepoch example enough?
I presented another patch to Hans, where task and mm allocations are
switched to zones, and the zones have reserve applied. Then allocations
from ithreads use the reserve.
There is one detail there, reserve is finite, for x86 I set it to the
total limit of interrupts. This somewhat breaks if interrupts are
deallocated and reallocated, but I think it is good enough even with
this wart.
Hi,
Your patch doesn't address the issue of initializing the pointers in
question once. Still, for every call, we need to check if the pointer is
valid. This is not neccessary.
Also I don't see why we need to create a own UMA zone for these simple
structures. Won't the per-CPU sysctl consume more memory than the actual
task structures being allocated?
--HPS
_______________________________________________
dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev-commits-src-main
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "dev-commits-src-main-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
