From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 18:43:49 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5251AB1375C for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@sippysoft.com) Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27B6919FA for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@sippysoft.com) Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r78so18390641oie.0 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:43:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sippysoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=Hw34JcqVxAF1D6VrNa0QMFOdBWDcfUmgUKtKHinljhI=; b=ACTujPCnijPGEyp8k59HLZu2n4aylMSBxbV5QDGqwV3tbSGp+TMjGrgCmccBtAEzjF ASSbKVbhPBGeF1qiEtpdarqZDCrs7TaLLcZ4UfUtoMRYE+yy1HzVBj3pZSFcQnSQ41gu Zf+OEEOnL2u9KYI75vMv+5yDkfDOGMaGMY9x4qrW02hkyQj63apeLenaT1oSKrA6wf4n wKDTVNvBr07bEQQAP03xyqhm0Ol+g98jKiHfB9cwtOJ94f4TDnH09oJkwqNZ8tgJ43mQ 2wdEKF63CeIJXmQXzZjArXLWE0nTBuCFEppYMJGk7uiFd8/Wijlbozk4mq8mT2P5R1vj 6o2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Hw34JcqVxAF1D6VrNa0QMFOdBWDcfUmgUKtKHinljhI=; b=fdFwtRgl6nzi9nNnCoDKSt7EvT8Q0T7xckMq6kD50GRo7RQ2h57fTawBTpZ3045Q4T Dje5UwaHQmHcU/SqnaYiwl8Y90ND7D7AgfNkneKFLn9C0ckLlc75HLQPs0TJqv6SGAZx owoIkzEZF1o19R7RA1Jaa3KDHwuZTxOwzpRkHro2CxKCe2rbWBZq6h/DFpZTA8YcQYD1 4wGWvz/bOxtdfEOqvtAb+r8osR3uUFNRBrv4iwHjw5ninktceSxqE4zyWWJjOeOIqlEB JsjsHdEQo7Bl+MN5jaROI1T/3X2cgOQ9ob3Us7nRQLeu6HCz5wpCVzdvBpEwwh+7RLG+ wFEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXxQxg/KTNSyy0GxyNTptkB/OU2LCsP4/gZa9I+w0RTb4NtHZrxqcFwn82fSCjy3+X0YBTQId+GtBIGTP6s MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.75.136 with SMTP id y130mr1822393oia.111.1461091428360; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: sobomax@sippysoft.com Received: by 10.157.37.123 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:43:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1461086958.1232.30.camel@freebsd.org> References: <201604182309.u3IN9MC6047480@repo.freebsd.org> <57157108.6090500@freebsd.org> <20160419093022.GV2422@kib.kiev.ua> <5716538B.4060108@freebsd.org> <1461086958.1232.30.camel@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:43:48 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WFsMgdByFdQAPN55S5k8A0eiSOo Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r298230 - in head: lib/libstand sys/boot/common sys/boot/efi/libefi sys/boot/efi/loader sys/boot/i386/libfirewire sys/boot/i386/libi386 sys/boot/i386/loader sys/boot/mips/beri/loader sy... From: Maxim Sobolev To: Ian Lepore Cc: Allan Jude , Konstantin Belousov , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:49 -0000 Sorry, if stupid question, but can this feature kick in automatically once you have more than X MB amount of memory available, going back to default memory-conserving "slow" mode if not? I cannot imagine that would take too much effort/code to implement. I take care of some really old legacy embedded systems at customer > sites, and even so, with stuff dating back to the 2003-ish timeframe, > the smallest i386 memory I have to deal with is 64MB. Are there really > x86 systems that need to run in 32MB or less of ram these days, and use > BIOS or EFI to boot? > Ian, let's not forget that there are lot of VM systems out there these days. If you run very narrow functionality image but your app needs to run zillion of them you might want to dial down VM memory size to a bare minimum. Still those VM system often use just the regular i386 loader bits. So, yes, it's possible that some people might actually run amd64 or i386 kernels on very small RAM footprints even today. -Max