Subject: Re: Semi(?)-success with an SMP kernel
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Bill Sommerfeld <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/28/2000 10:07:05
> + Should we add another sysctl_rdstruct()-type function (maybe
> sysctl_rdminstruct()?) that would only return min(data_size,
> request_size) so min() isn't used in lots of places and it's
> obvious which sysctls may return short data.
> + All the fields in uvmexp are "int". Is this big enough? Sure MAXINT
> pages on a box is a _big_ number, but Compaq have a box that can
> handle 256GB of RAM - that's 2^25 pages already...
yah, but there's maybe a decade of headroom there..
> + Everything in uvmexp is nicely grouped together - I'd still like to
> make a struct uvmexp2 with fixed size fields and the same rules as
> struct kinfo_proc2 where new fields can only be added to the end.
agreed. these counters can be int in uvmexp and uint64_t in uvmexp2,
and then they can grow to larger types in the kernel implementation
when it makes sense for them to grow, without affecting the ABI.