Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:02:20 -0500 From: Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu> To: Olivier Houchard <cognet@ci0.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r251586 - head/sys/arm/ti Message-ID: <51B6069C.6060704@rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <20130610110847.GA46614@ci0.org> References: <201306092251.r59MpCmW006162@svn.freebsd.org> <20130610035547.GX3047@kib.kiev.ua> <20130610110847.GA46614@ci0.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/10/2013 06:08, Olivier Houchard wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 10:51:12PM +0000, Olivier Houchard wrote: >>> Author: cognet >>> Date: Sun Jun 9 22:51:11 2013 >>> New Revision: 251586 >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/251586 >>> >>> Log: >>> Increase the maximum KVM available on TI chips. Not sure why we suddenly need >>> that much, but that lets me boot with 1GB of RAM. >> I suspect that the cause is the combination of limited KVA and >> lack of any limitation for the buffer map. I noted that ARM lacks >> VM_BCACHE_SIZE_MAX after a report from mav about similar (?) problem a >> day ago. >> >> In essence, the buffer map is allowed to take up to ~330MB when no >> upper limit from VM_BCACHE_SIZE_MAX is specified. > > Hi Konstantin, > > Thanks for the hint ! > It seems only i386 and sparc64 sets it, what would be a good value, 200M, as > it is on i386 ? > Since there are many arm platforms with less than 1 GB of kernel virtual address (KVA) space, VM_BCACHE_SIZE_MAX should be made to scale down from 200 MB with the available KVA space. See how VM_KMEM_SIZE_MAX is currently defined on arm. Alan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51B6069C.6060704>