From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 24 09:44:50 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7054B106566B; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:44:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF8A8FC0A; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62768658B; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:44:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 27EAA8CA7; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:44:49 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: John Baldwin References: <502831B7.1080309@freebsd.org> <86zk5y55rg.fsf@ds4.des.no> <201208141346.12782.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:44:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <201208141346.12782.jhb@freebsd.org> (John Baldwin's message of "Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:46:12 -0400") Message-ID: <86a9xklj3j.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Colin Percival Subject: Re: Time to bump default VM_SWZONE_SIZE_MAX? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:44:50 -0000 John Baldwin 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