Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:52:57 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org 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? Message-ID: <200806061552.58205.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86y75iah9f.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <6a7033710805302252v43a7b240x66ca3f5e3dd5fda4@mail.gmail.com> <20080605065330.GA62591@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <86y75iah9f.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200806061552.58205.jhb>