From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep 28 21:44:21 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 5FA7E16A469;
	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:44:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A43E13C45D;
	Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:44:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <46FD75B6.7050709@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:44:22 +0200
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Craig Boston <cb@severious.net>
References: <20070928133452.GA52277@nowhere>
In-Reply-To: <20070928133452.GA52277@nowhere>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Darren Reed <darrenr@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org,
	Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
Subject: Re: panic: kmem_malloc(131072): kmem_map too small (AMD64)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:44:21 -0000

Craig Boston wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:28:36AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
>> You're all missing the point, I hate to say.  What happened is that a
>> change was made recently to more accurately account for allocated
>> memory.  Now people are getting kmem_map_too_small panics that weren't
>> getting them before.  So while the accounting is now more accurate,
>> the outcome is actually harmful.  That needs to be fixed before the
>> release.
> 
> Agreed.  A month ago I had zfs running perfectly on many different i386
> machines (albeit with some tweaking to kernel parameters).  With a
> week-old current, it always panics sooner or later now, no matter how
> low I set the ARC cache size or maxvnodes or how much I pump into
> kmem_size.
> 
> Now kmem_map panics are being reported on amd64, which was pretty much
> unheard of before.

FYI, no :)

Kris