In message <3398a21318a4a6715609004d569d20de86f1dc7a.ca...@freebsd.org> , Ian Le pore writes: > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 05:42 -0700, Cy Schubert wrote: > > In message <201903250746.x2p7kkuu019...@repo.freebsd.org>, Allan > > Jude > > writes: > > > Author: allanjude > > > Date: Mon Mar 25 07:46:20 2019 > > > New Revision: 345491 > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/345491 > > > > > > Log: > > > Make TMPFS_PAGES_MINRESERVED a kernel option > > > > > > TMPFS_PAGES_MINRESERVED controls how much memory is reserved for > > > the system > > > and not used by tmpfs. > > > > > > On very small memory systems, the default value may be too high > > > and this > > > prevents these small memory systems from using reroot, which is > > > required > > > for them to install firmware updates. > > > > > > Submitted by: Hiroki Mori <yamori...@yahoo.co.jp> > > > Reviewed by: mizhka > > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13583 > > > > > > Modified: > > > head/sys/conf/options > > > head/sys/fs/tmpfs/tmpfs.h > > > head/sys/fs/tmpfs/tmpfs_vfsops.c > > > head/sys/modules/tmpfs/Makefile > > > > > > > Would this be a good candidate for a sysctl or tuneable? > > > > The small-memory embedded systems most affected by this often don't use > loader(8) at all, so tunables aren't an option, and sysctl may be too > late. No reason it can't be a tunable as well, but it'll probably need > to remain as a compile-time option too.
Yes, I should have been more clear. I can see using a tuneable on a 2 GB or 4 GB Intel pandaboard. (Perfect for a firewall or a UPS management station.) -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <c...@freebsd.org> Web: http://www.FreeBSD.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
