Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:15:36 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD on the AP121 (AR9330) Message-ID: <65064C0E-1C1F-4C07-9CFB-DEEC1638A78D@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokJ40LDF4WeuAENkZR89iStEmnTGkojeA6brSRkSKgJ1w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmom8sbMJvFn1ucGBSiptWtKPC0kE1Ss22Kj-WGVSkP_8ag@mail.gmail.com> <1364404612.36972.59.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAJ-VmokJ40LDF4WeuAENkZR89iStEmnTGkojeA6brSRkSKgJ1w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 27 March 2013 10:16, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> For starters you might try disabling WITNESS and other things you can't >> afford in a slimmed-down kernel. On the other hand, kernel bloat is > > Well, the only thing I can't really afford here is the -head > debugging. But it doesn't actually slim down things significantly. > I'll re-post the sizes later. Maybe if you posted the config file, I can tell you what you're missing. >> If the system isn't doing heavy IO, try "option NBUF=128" to seriously >> slim down the amount of memory for buffers (by default it'll use 1/4 of >> total ram up to 64MB). It would be nice to know more about the >> implications of tweaking this number, but when I asked on a mailing list >> once I didn't get much useful info. > > There's that; I think the problem here is deadlock if there's not > enough buffers available. Guess that bug should be fixed. > > The other immediate thing is the umtx hash array. It's rather large > (512) and it doesn't need to be. > > I haven't even started with the subsystem memory allocations yet > either. They get even scarier. > > (And userland is doubly-scary on this platform. Sigh.) Can't comment here... Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?65064C0E-1C1F-4C07-9CFB-DEEC1638A78D>