Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:22:35 -0800 From: Artem Belevich <art@freebsd.org> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: Matthew Fleming <mdf@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kmem_map auto-sizing and size dependencies Message-ID: <CAFqOu6jO1iMM=gS5-x%2B_91JfCF3zdLW-Dfnvja2QozDWUV%2BkTA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130121210645.GC1341@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <50F96A67.9080203@freebsd.org> <CAMBSHm-xPo7bH556h4QwtHhCUHX%2B4g_pv3=t29C1SLD4VnBWsQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130121210645.GC1341@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:26:04AM -0800, mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote: >> > Should it be set to a larger initial value based on min(physical,KVM) space >> > available? >> >> It needs to be smaller than the physical space, [...] > > Or larger, as the address space can get fragmented and you might not be > able to allocate memory even if you have physical pages available. +1 for relaxing upper limit. I routinely patch all my systems that use ZFS to allow kmem_map size to be larger than physical memory. Otherwise on a system where most of RAM goes towards ZFS ARC I used to eventually run into dreaded kmem_map too small panic. --Artem
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFqOu6jO1iMM=gS5-x%2B_91JfCF3zdLW-Dfnvja2QozDWUV%2BkTA>