On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > There's no downside, really. > > It just seems inelegant to have a system that, on paper, is > so inefficient. Can't we do better? Sure. Don't discard buffer contents when recycling a B_MALLOC'ed buffer, but manage it using a secondary buffer cache that doesn't have as much overhead as the primary one (in particular, don't reserve BKVASIZE bytes of kernel virtual address space for each secondary buffer). This would be even more inelegant, and more complicated, but not so inefficient. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... E.B. Dreger
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... Matt Dillon
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... E.B. Dreger
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... Rik van Riel
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... E.B. Dreger
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... E.B. Dreger
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... Rik van Riel
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... E.B. Dreger
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... janb
- Re: Kernel preemption, yes or no? (was: Filesystem gets a... Alfred Perlstein
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Bruce Evans
- Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost Matt Dillon