On Thursday, 8 July 1999 at 9:26:09 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> David Greenman wrote:
>> Yes, I do - at least with the 512MB figure. That would be half of the 1GB
>> KVA space and large systems really need that space for things like network
>> buffers and other map regions.
>
> Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What would be an acceptable upper limit? 256MB? 128MB? The test
>> I ran (Kirk's news test) ate around 60MB for the "FFS Node" memory area
>> before the number of vnodes stabilized, on a 1GB machine. I would say
>> that a 128MB upper limit would be too small for a 4G machine. A 256MB
>> limit ought to work for a 4G machine
>
> It appears we're rapidly approaching the point where 32-bits isn't
> enough. We could increase KVA - but that cuts into process VM space
> (and a large machine is likely to have large processes).
>
> The other option is moving away from a flat memory model: How about
> putting some of the larger kernel-only data-structures into another
> segment? The downside is that unless we want to start passing `far'
> pointers around (which is both ugly and inefficient), we need to
> make the pointer address space transparent to the compiler.
Why not put the kernel in a different address space? IIRC there's no
absolute requirement for the kernel and userland to be in the same
address space, and that way we would have 4 GB for each.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
