From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 16:15:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6955B16A4CE; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ms-smtp-01-eri0.socal.rr.com (ms-smtp-01-qfe0.socal.rr.com [66.75.162.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CCD43F85; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:15:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) Received: from blue.mcneil.com (cpe-66-75-176-109.socal.rr.com [66.75.176.109])hAQ0F6Km018356; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.75.176.109] (mcneil.com [66.75.176.109]) by blue.mcneil.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAQ0F5bq088108; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:15:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sean@mcneil.com) From: Sean McNeil To: "Daniel O'Connor" In-Reply-To: <200311261039.48483.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <1069747092.75674.6.camel@blue.mcneil.com> <20031125081350.GE8404@elvis.mu.org> <200311261039.48483.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Sean McNeil Consulting Message-Id: <1069805705.66463.2.camel@blue.mcneil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:15:05 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-dmv.com-Metrics: blue.mcneil.com 1181; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: memory allocation issue loading a kernel module X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:15:11 -0000 Perfect!! This is exactly the thing I need. I will investigate. Memory is an option, but this project is pretty much done. Knowing how to do the bktr approach is something worth the excercise. More RAM won't teach me anything new ;-) Sean On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 16:09, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 18:43, Maxime Henrion wrote: > > If I remember correctly, Alan Cox intended to write a binary buddy > > allocator to handle the physical address space (or do coalescing another > > way, I'm not sure...) so that this particular problem is solved. > > Another way to solve it is the bktr approach which has a KLD that just > reserves some memory early on (ie you load it in the loader). This means that > when you test your module the memory chunk stays around no matter how often > you reload. > > You could get more RAM too 8-)