From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Mar 21 14:26: 1 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 108BD37B71D for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:26:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.dis.org (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f2LMOrh02530; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:24:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org) Message-Id: <200103212224.f2LMOrh02530@mass.dis.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Matt Dillon Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: remind me again, why is MAXPHYS only 128k ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:15:44 PST." <200103212215.f2LMFig23991@earth.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:24:53 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Another possibility for physio would be to MALLOC the pages > array at the very top level of the syscall and pass it down > through for use by lower layers. At the very top level, > before anything is locked, the MALLOC can block safely. This would deal with the async physio case too. I'm wondering how all this will interact with the general desire to avoid mapping an I/O request into linear KVM before handing it to a driver; I suspect probably not a lot... -- ... 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