From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 17 07:27:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6876D1065697; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:27:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420198FC0A; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:27:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id KAA17650; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:27:53 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OwVMP-00087M-0t; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:27:53 +0300 Message-ID: <4C931878.803@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:27:52 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100912 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <4C4DB2B8.9080404@freebsd.org> <201007270935.52082.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C531ED7.9010601@cs.rice.edu> <201007301614.40768.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201007301614.40768.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: alc@freebsd.org, Alan Cox , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64: change VM_KMEM_SIZE_SCALE to 1? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 07:27:56 -0000 on 30/07/2010 23:14 John Baldwin said the following: > I think this is much better. My strawman was rather hackish in that it was > layering a hack on top of the existing calculations. I prefer your approach. > I do not think penalizing amd64 machines with less than 1.5GB is a big worry > as most x86 machines with a small amount of memory are probably running as > i386 anyway. Given that, I would probably lean towards 1/8 instead of 1/7, > but I would be happy with either one. Alan, John, are you planning to commit the vnodes limit patch or a version of it? -- Andriy Gapon