On 26-Apr-01 Terry Lambert wrote:
> ] The problem is that param.c is *not* included in gensetdefs scope.
> ] Therefore linker set entries (ie: SYSINIT etc) are not executed. TUNABLE*
> ] entries in param.c are simply not called or used.
> ]
> ] SYSTEM_OBJS= locore.o setdef0.o vnode_if.o ${OBJS}
] The problem is that param.c is *not* included in gensetdefs scope.
] Therefore linker set entries (ie: SYSINIT etc) are not executed. TUNABLE*
] entries in param.c are simply not called or used.
]
] SYSTEM_OBJS= locore.o setdef0.o vnode_if.o ${OBJS} ioconf.o param.o config.o \
] setdef
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010424 11:59] wrote:
> > It seems to me that these things are not boot-time tunable, and
> > should be (really, they should be runtime tunable, but there
> > are some nasty pageable region allocations for networking that
> > appear to
> > It seems to me that these things are not boot-time tunable, and
> > should be (really, they should be runtime tunable, but there
>
> $ sysctl -a | grep maxf
> kern.maxfiles: 360
> kern.maxfilesperproc: 360
>
> `maxfiles' and `maxfilesperproc' have been runtime tunable for more
> than 5 years
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> It seems to me that these things are not boot-time tunable, and
> should be (really, they should be runtime tunable, but there
$ sysctl -a | grep maxf
kern.maxfiles: 360
kern.maxfilesperproc: 360
`maxfiles' and `maxfilesperproc' have been runtime tuna
] Why assign them the value of 0? Why not just stick them in the BSS?
] The SI_SUB_TUNABLE checks will initialize them to a value anyways..
Mostly, to leave them where I found them, for paranoia reasons.
Terry Lambert
] This looks good except that ncallout is still based on MAXFILES,
] without this being fixed I think people might get bitten by
] raising the tuneable too high then being unable to allocate
] enough callouts. Can you take a look at this and make sure there's
] nothing else using MAXFILES like th
On 24-Apr-01 Terry Lambert wrote:
> It seems to me that these things are not boot-time tunable, and
> should be (really, they should be runtime tunable, but there
> are some nasty pageable region allocations for networking that
> appear to require contiguous regions for no good reason which I
> c
* Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010424 11:59] wrote:
> It seems to me that these things are not boot-time tunable, and
> should be (really, they should be runtime tunable, but there
> are some nasty pageable region allocations for networking that
> appear to require contiguous regions for no
