Subject: Re: BUFFERCACHE, PR 1903
To: Michael L. VanLoon -- HeadCandy.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G Demetriou <Chris_G_Demetriou@ux2.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 09/14/1996 00:13:08
> > (4) it's annoying to no longer be able to have the "N percent
> > of the first M megs, P percent of the rest" function,
> > to better support small-memory systems.
> There's no reason you couldn't default back to this if BUFCACHE (or
> whatever) wasn't defined. Say, for GENERIC kernels.
So, that means that the diffs are machine-dependent, and there's a
question about whether or not what the patch does is 'right'... that
means that somebody's gotta take the time to figure out 'the right
My thoughts on the matter:
If you're tailoring a kernel to a specific system, and that's why you
want to use "options BUFCACHE", why not just wire a certain number of
buffers/pages via NBUF/BUFPAGES? (how often does your memory size
change? since they're patchable, you don't have to build a new
If you're trying to use a consistent kernel throughout a given
environment, and you claim that you don't have a fixed amount of
memory in each machine (so don't want to use NBUF/BUFPAGES), who's to
say that you wouldn't hit the "small memory" case, or that having a
more carefully tunable amount of memory wouldn't be generally useful?
(In other words, i'm still not convinced that this should be an
option at all, and that if it should be it's "good enough" as is. 8-)