From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Mar 21 21:48:36 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65ABF37B71E; Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:48:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f2M5mL194013; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 06:48:21 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Mike Smith Cc: Matt Dillon , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: remind me again, why is MAXPHYS only 128k ? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:24:53 PST." <200103212224.f2LMOrh02530@mass.dis.org> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 06:48:21 +0100 Message-ID: <94011.985240101@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200103212224.f2LMOrh02530@mass.dis.org>, Mike Smith writes: >> 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... That is more dependent on fixing the device driver API than anything else. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message