From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun  6 20:57:03 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B023106580B;
	Fri,  6 Jun 2008 20:57:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net
	[IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD778FC18;
	Fri,  6 Jun 2008 20:57:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m56KtqcL015893;
	Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:56:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:52:57 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <6a7033710805302252v43a7b240x66ca3f5e3dd5fda4@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080605065330.GA62591@eos.sc1.parodius.com>
	<86y75iah9f.fsf@ds4.des.no>
In-Reply-To: <86y75iah9f.fsf@ds4.des.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200806061552.58205.jhb@freebsd.org>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]);
	Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:56:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/7390/Fri Jun 6 13:50:38 2008 on
	server.baldwin.cx
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS 
	autolearn=ham version=3.1.3
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx
Cc: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>,
	Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@freebsd.org>,
	Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, Tz-Huan Huang <tzhuan@csie.org>
Subject: Re: Is there any way to increase the KVM?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:57:03 -0000

On Friday 06 June 2008 08:18:36 am Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > That's great to hear, but the point I've made regarding kmem_size not
> > being able to extend past 2GB (on i386 and amd64) still stands.  I've
> > looked at the code myself, in attempt to figure out where the actual
> > limitation is, and the code is beyond my understanding.
>=20
> IIRC, it's a hardware limitation.  Search the archives for "kmem_size"
> and my name for a full explanation.

While global variables have to be within 2GB for %rip relative addressing,=
=20
there's no reason malloc'd buffers can't be anywhere in the 64-bit address=
=20
space since pointers are 64-bits.

=2D-=20
John Baldwin