On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 13:29 -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:45:11 pm Sean Bruno wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 02:48 -0500, Robert Watson wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Joshua Neal wrote: > > > > > > > I hit this bug at one point, and had to bump MEMSTAT_MAXCPU. It's > > > > already > > > > asking the kernel for the max number and throwing an error if it > > > > doesn't > > > > agree: > > > > > > Yes, it looks like MAXCPU was bumped in the kernel without bumping the > > > limit > > > in libmemstat. The bug could be in not having a comment by the > > > definition of > > > MAXCPU saying that MEMSTAT_MAXCPU needs to be modified as well. > > > > > > > I was thinking a more future-proof fix would be to get rid of the > > > > static > > > > allocations and allocate the library's internal structures based on the > > > > value of kern.smp.maxcpus. > > > > > > Agreed. I'm fairly preoccupied currently, but would be happy to accept > > > patches :-). > > > > > > Robert > > > > Working on a dynamic version today. I'll spam it over to you for review > > later. > > > > I'm moving the percpu struct definitions outside of struct memory_type, > > allocating quantity kern.smp.maxcpus, removing the boundary checks based > > on MEMSTAT_MAXCPU and then removing MEMSTAT_MAXCPU all together. > > If you go fully dynamic you should use mp_maxid + 1 rather than maxcpus. >
I assume that mp_maxid is the new kern.smp.maxcpus? Can you inject some history here so I can understand why one is "better" than the other? Sean _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
