On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 01/11/2010 19:09 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
>> Here the patch that was in my mind.
>> The patch doesn't implement dynamic slab size just allow
>> to have a multipage slab to back uma_zone objects.
>> I'm going to work more on th
on 01/11/2010 19:09 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
> Here the patch that was in my mind.
> The patch doesn't implement dynamic slab size just allow
> to have a multipage slab to back uma_zone objects.
> I'm going to work more on the topic "dynamic slab size" soon.
> I tested the patch on q
On Monday, November 01, 2010 6:02:19 pm Giovanni Trematerra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:14 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09:22 pm Giovanni Trematerra wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> > on 19/10/2010 00:01 Giovanni Trematerra
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:14 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09:22 pm Giovanni Trematerra wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> > on 19/10/2010 00:01 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
>> >>
>> >> Your patch seems just a work around about i
On Monday, November 01, 2010 1:09:22 pm Giovanni Trematerra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > on 19/10/2010 00:01 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
> >>
> >> Your patch seems just a work around about initial slab size where the
> >> keg is backed.
> >
> > Well
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 19/10/2010 00:01 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
>>
>> Your patch seems just a work around about initial slab size where the
>> keg is backed.
>
> Well, setting aside my confusion with the terminology - yes, the patch is just
> that
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> Having dynamic slab sizes would allow to have the keg backed on a larger slab
>> without going OFFPAGE.
>
> I agree in principle.
> But without seeing code that implements that I can't guess if it would really
> be
> more efficient or more
on 19/10/2010 00:01 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> Again, not sure if I follow you, I don't see relation between per-cpu caches
>> and
>> dynamic slab size.
>
> Your patch seems just a work around about initial slab size where th
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 18/10/2010 16:40 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 23/09/2010 21:25 Andriy Gapon said the following:
Jeff,
just for the kicks I tried to emulate a mac
on 18/10/2010 16:40 Giovanni Trematerra said the following:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 23/09/2010 21:25 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>>
>>> Jeff,
>>>
>>> just for the kicks I tried to emulate a machine with 64 logical CPUs using
>>> qemu-devel port:
>>> qemu-
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 23/09/2010 21:25 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> just for the kicks I tried to emulate a machine with 64 logical CPUs using
>> qemu-devel port:
>> qemu-system-x86_64 -smp sockets=4,cores=8,threads=2 ...
>>
>> It seems tha
on 23/09/2010 21:25 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> Jeff,
>
> just for the kicks I tried to emulate a machine with 64 logical CPUs using
> qemu-devel port:
> qemu-system-x86_64 -smp sockets=4,cores=8,threads=2 ...
>
> It seems that FreeBSD agreed to recognize only first 32 CPUs, but it pani
Jeff,
just for the kicks I tried to emulate a machine with 64 logical CPUs using
qemu-devel port:
qemu-system-x86_64 -smp sockets=4,cores=8,threads=2 ...
It seems that FreeBSD agreed to recognize only first 32 CPUs, but it paniced
anyway.
Here's a backtrace:
#34 0x804fe7f5 in zone_allo
13 matches
Mail list logo
