On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:54:56 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> On 1/22/14, 2:52 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Alfred Perlstein wrote this message on Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 14:15 -0800:
> >> On 1/22/14, 1:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:59:37 pm Alfred Perls
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:35:54 am Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 22 January 2014 20:34, Rui Paulo wrote:
> > On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >
> >> .. Make it be an offset into the table rather than a pointer, then we can
do dirty rcu style hacks to just replace and grow the tab
On 22 January 2014 20:34, Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
>> .. Make it be an offset into the table rather than a pointer, then we can do
>> dirty rcu style hacks to just replace and grow the table as we need more
>> memory.
>>
>> Don't we have a standard way
On 1/22/14, 8:34 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
.. Make it be an offset into the table rather than a pointer, then we can do
dirty rcu style hacks to just replace and grow the table as we need more memory.
Don't we have a standard way to pull memory from
On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. Make it be an offset into the table rather than a pointer, then we can do
> dirty rcu style hacks to just replace and grow the table as we need more
> memory.
>
> Don't we have a standard way to pull memory from the top of the physmem area
>
.. Make it be an offset into the table rather than a pointer, then we can
do dirty rcu style hacks to just replace and grow the table as we need more
memory.
Don't we have a standard way to pull memory from the top of the physmem
area early on for allocations like this?
Adrian
On Jan 20, 2014 3:5
On 1/22/14, 2:52 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote this message on Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 14:15 -0800:
On 1/22/14, 1:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:59:37 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 1/22/14, 12:27 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22,
Alfred Perlstein wrote this message on Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 14:15 -0800:
>
> On 1/22/14, 1:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:59:37 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >>On 1/22/14, 12:27 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:06:39 pm Alfred Perlstein w
On 1/22/14, 1:22 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:59:37 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 1/22/14, 12:27 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:06:39 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hmm, what if locks had a pointer to a 2 element char * array, the first
being
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:59:37 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> On 1/22/14, 12:27 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:06:39 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> Hmm, what if locks had a pointer to a 2 element char * array, the first
> >> being the name, the second the typ
On 1/22/14, 12:27 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:06:39 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hmm, what if locks had a pointer to a 2 element char * array, the first
being the name, the second the type. That would keep the size of the
lock down and most locks could share a common
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:06:39 pm Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> On 1/22/14, 10:14 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Scott Long wrote this message on Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 15:12 -0700:
> >> On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:18:44 pm Alexan
On 1/22/14, 10:14 AM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Scott Long wrote this message on Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 15:12 -0700:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:18:44 pm Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:32:29 -0500
John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunda
Scott Long wrote this message on Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 15:12 -0700:
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:18:44 pm Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:32:29 -0500
> >> John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:12:30 pm Scott Long wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:18:44 pm Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:32:29 -0500
> >> John Baldwin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui
On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:26 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:18:44 pm Alexander Kabaev wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:32:29 -0500
>> John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui Paulo wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
> Autho
On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:18:44 pm Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:32:29 -0500
> John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui Paulo wrote:
> > > On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
> > > > Author: neel
> > > > Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
> > > >
On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:21:13 pm Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2014, at 08:32, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui Paulo wrote:
> >> On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
> >>> Author: neel
> >>> Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
> >>> New Revision: 260898
> >
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:32:29 -0500
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui Paulo wrote:
> > On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
> > > Author: neel
> > > Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
> > > New Revision: 260898
> > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/26089
On 20 Jan 2014, at 08:32, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui Paulo wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
>>> Author: neel
>>> Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
>>> New Revision: 260898
>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260898
>>>
>>> Log:
>>
On Sunday 19 January 2014 18:18:03 Rui Paulo wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
> > Author: neel
> > Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
> > New Revision: 260898
> > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260898
> >
> > Log:
> > Bump up WITNESS_COUNT from 1024 to 1536 so there
On 19 Jan 2014, at 17:59, Neel Natu wrote:
> Author: neel
> Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
> New Revision: 260898
> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260898
>
> Log:
> Bump up WITNESS_COUNT from 1024 to 1536 so there are sufficient entries for
> WITNESS to actually work.
This valu
Author: neel
Date: Mon Jan 20 01:59:35 2014
New Revision: 260898
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/260898
Log:
Bump up WITNESS_COUNT from 1024 to 1536 so there are sufficient entries for
WITNESS to actually work.
Reviewed by: jhb@
Modified:
head/sys/kern/subr_witness.c
Mo
23 matches
Mail list logo