Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:56:51 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Even 1GB KVA is not enough, but we have no more space Message-ID: <20001207015651.P16205@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <vmpuj48svm.wl@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; from tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp on Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:47:57PM %2B0900 References: <vmsno08u4f.wl@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <vmr93k8tqe.wl@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <20001207013611.O16205@fw.wintelcom.net> <vmpuj48svm.wl@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> [001207 01:48] wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:36:11 -0800, > Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> said: > > >> URI: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~tanimura/patches/vm.diff > > Alfred> in the loop you use to allocate, you never test if 'n' hits zero, > Alfred> now if there's a swap problem you won't print anything, just wedge > Alfred> hard. > > It should also be good to reject swapon(2) if swap_zone is NULL. Agreed. Since you've been pouring through this code, I'm wondering what happens when the swapper can't allocate as much as it wants? Does it just reduce the amount of swaping the machine can do? or is there a performance hit? or both? > > -- > Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <tanimura@FreeBSD.org> -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001207015651.P16205>