On 1/12/13 10:32 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 12 January 2013 11:45, Alfred Perlstein <bri...@mu.org> wrote:
I'm not sure if regressing to the waterfall method of development is a good
idea at this point.
I see a light at the end of the tunnel and we to continue to just handle
these minor corner cases as we progress.
If we move to a model where a minor bug is grounds to completely remove
helpful code then nothing will ever get done.
Allocating 512MB worth of callwheels on a 16GB MIPS machine is a
little silly, don't you think?
That suggests to me that the extent of which maxfiles/maxusers/etc
percolates the codebase wasn't totally understood by those who wish to
change it.
I'd rather see some more investigative work into outlining things that
need fixing and start fixing those, rather than "just change stuff and
fix whatever issues creep up."
I kinda hope we all understand what we're working on in the kernel a
little better than that.
Cool! I'm glad people are now aware of the callwheel allocation being
insane with large maxusers.
I saw this about a month ago (if not longer), but since there were half
a dozen people calling me an imbecile who hadn't really yet read the
code I didn't want to inflame them more by fixing that with "a hack".
(actually a simple fix).
A simple fix is to clamp callwheel size to the previous result of a
maxusers of 384 and call it a day.
However the simplicity of that approach would probably inflame too many
feelings so I am unsure as how to proceed.
Any ideas?
-Alfred
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
