From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 31 12:22:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB41737B69F for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:21:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0VKMDW00902; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:22:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200101312022.f0VKMDW00902@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Dan Nelson , Seigo Tanimura , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bumping up {MAX,DFLT}*PHYS (was Re: Bumping up {MAX,DFL}*SIZ in i386) In-reply-to: Your message of "31 Jan 2001 21:07:45 +0100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:22:13 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Dan Nelson writes: > > On a similar note, is there any reason for us to have DFLTPHYS at 64k > > anymore? With the insane interface speeds of SCSI and ATA devices > > nowadays, you can easily hit 600 I/Os per second on sequential reads > > (40MB/sec, 64K per I/O). Would anything break if MAXPHYS/DFLTPHYS was > > bumped to say, 1mb? > > I think so; we can't do DMA transfers larger than 64k (128k in word > mode) - at least for ISA devices, I don't know much about PCI. It's 128K right now, actually. The problem is that a lot of older devices have limits which cap them at 64K. (Typically, 16-bit bytecount registers, or 16- or 17-slot scatter/gather tables.) -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message