From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 27 11:51:46 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74331065677
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:51:46 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FD88FC12;
	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <48B53FCB.4000107@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:51:39 +0200
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
References: <18612.51201.285688.628405@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
	<48B52AEE.9080205@FreeBSD.org>
	<200808272042.43260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <200808272042.43260.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, barry.boes@acciodata.com
Subject: Re: kvm on amd64 - >6G?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:51:46 -0000

Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> will now get you this:
>>
>> vm.kvm_free: 547729960960
>> vm.kvm_size: 549755809792
>>
>> on HEAD.  :-)
> 
> Holy fat cache Batman!
> 
> Any chance it could be made a tunable?
> 

I don't know what the impact might be of changing these constants to 
runtime variable accesses, if they are in a critical path somewhere.

Kris