Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.bugs
Subject: Re: [FreeBSD 1.0e] Kernel's bss has grown up
Date: 7 Nov 93 17:45:49
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <CGD.93Nov7174549@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <2bd92f$4t@keltia.frmug.fr.net> <MYCROFT.93Nov6093036@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
<1993Nov7.101416.26351@emba.uvm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: wollman@aix1.emba.uvm.edu's message of Sun, 7 Nov 1993 10:14:16 GMT
In article <1993Nov7.101416.26351@emba.uvm.edu> wollman@aix1.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>To be completely precise, our use of the word ``dynamic'' refers to
>the fact that, while virtual address space for buffers is still
>statically allocated, the amount of space made available for this
>purpose depends on the size of main memory, and will never exceed
>(32MB)*2/5 in the present implementation.
the problem is, this isn't the standard usage of the term "dynamic"
when it comes to buffer caches.
It's normally interpreted to mean "is integrated with and shares
space with the virtual memory system, expanding and contracting
as the needs of each demand," a la SunOS, and other systems.
Note that that, which is the standard meaning (and how all who work
on NetBSD interpreted it), is *NOT AT ALL* what's in FreeBSD.
That's what the point of contention is; the FreeBSD release
notes use a somewhat standard term in a decidedly non-standard way.
cgd
--
chris g. demetriou cgd@cs.berkeley.edu
smarter than your average clam.