Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:44:48 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Time to bump default VM_SWZONE_SIZE_MAX? Message-ID: <86a9xklj3j.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <201208141346.12782.jhb@freebsd.org> (John Baldwin's message of "Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:46:12 -0400") References: <502831B7.1080309@freebsd.org> <86zk5y55rg.fsf@ds4.des.no> <201208141346.12782.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes: > Hmm, this is not true on i386 where the problem is not just the physical > RAM required, but also address space. (The swap zone is all mapped into = KVA=20 > even if it isn't used.) This is why Alan's e-mail specifically > mentioned amd64, ia64, etc. but not i386 in his list. I think i386 still > needs this limit, and I think your commit jumped the gun a bit. How about we reinstate the limit on i386, but increase it to 64 MB? That would increase the theoretical maximum to ~15 GB. People with 8 GB swap would get a warning, but would be unlikely to run into trouble. (or we could increase the limit to 72351744 bytes, which is the precise amount required to support 16 GB) DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86a9xklj3j.fsf>