From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 21 16:13:46 2007 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 DE57516A417 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:13:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9443213C447 for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:13:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from phobos.samsco.home (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l8LGDh5t025026; Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:13:43 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <46F3EDB7.4060502@samsco.org> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:13:43 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Rosenman References: <20070921102946.T11189@borg> In-Reply-To: <20070921102946.T11189@borg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]); Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:13:43 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:13:46 -0000 Larry Rosenman wrote: > I'm a heavy ZFS user, and got the following panic on 2007-09-18 > source/world: > [...] > > I have the core available, and am more than willing to give access to > the box. > > I'm not sure exactly what may have triggered it, but this is the first > ZFS panic I've seen. > > > I bet this is probably due to the recent change to the way small memory allocations are accounted for. Nothing has actually changed in memory usage, it's just that it's being counted much more accurately now. I had forgotten that there was such a low limit on the KMEM_MAP size on amd64. I think it should probably be raised significantly for the release (assuming that doing so doesn't screw up auto-sizing other maps). Scott