From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 28 14:44:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA22492 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:44:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22484 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:44:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA02461; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:39:32 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199702282239.PAA02461@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Assumptions about kmem_malloc()... To: tinguely@plains.nodak.edu (Mark Tinguely) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:39:32 -0700 (MST) Cc: dg@root.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, jpt@msc.edu In-Reply-To: <199702282157.PAA20337@plains.nodak.edu> from "Mark Tinguely" at Feb 28, 97 03:57:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Why doesn't it push pages around to get a contiguous space so that > > it won't fail? > > that would work if everything is swappable. It is hard to fight those holes > when drivers that need wired contigous memory come and go through lkm > loads/unloads. > > Most driver allocations would puke if their memory got moved unless we go > to a double pointer arrangement, but (aaaaaaaaaahhhhhgg) I would not have > to be the one to have to debug VM problems). The kernel is an virtual-to-physical address space map, isn't it? You wouldn't need to introduce "handles" to do it, I think. It's not the kernel eating all the physical memory anyway. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.