On Sep 19, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Chuck Silvers wrote:

> we could, but that would need either an extra lock, or some dance with
> sched_lock if we would try to protect it with that, or some per-CPU  
> list.
> it doesn't seem worth the complexity.
>
> and in general, I don't really like having extra layers of memory  
> caching
> on top of the pool caching, since those extra layers don't  
> automatically
> react to memory pressure like pools do.  we have a couple  
> exceptions already
> (buffer cache, kernel stacks), each with a special hook in the  
> pagedaemon,
> and I think we should avoid adding more unless there is a  
> compelling reason.

Yah, that's fine.  I was only offering a way to avoid "wasting" that  
upcall... I don't consider it that big of a deal, either.

-- thorpej