From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Tue Apr 19 18:43:49 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@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 5662DB1375D for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@sippysoft.com) Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 27BE119FB for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:43:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@sippysoft.com) Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id x201so18156293oif.3 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=MAH+Z+Rvf2yKLv71rrtGXiW+JpNXb3C73zjcRqwsAJGkZXakBsIPTYIQU1El/iD7/Q UrpGNpiHTPZsyNi1NNYCAq68Kk1y7H+3f/TYf0YabT4oMSjUjrIe8tzgCc9yY2HWCPSG BGyRld/ndSXfHBGgLjR9mi96WmRiTc8XGvOeyVc0HcU42h6o9AwSIgadZAKkjxrEnEhk QFDdCVHcvjIX1qUvBScXzMw4y4dcOMiDs5LoKMCvopAXiPcZXdsUJRFXA1/rvVeQBLbD 84UewU8HQN+UHEXPzuVcVhvlkKCmHgtB22plJ20Du8pWw935EGNEEOZhqaX+UioenUtH nbfg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FU6Mxn3pghKz73G5sPCowz9MWvxrUgqy5q6vvfIG4pU2sxLVUuDD8rFz5kR4kkUcDEMux5vQMyBrzqAanib 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-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" 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