Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 10:40:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: data corruption with current (maybe sis chipset related?) Message-ID: <3EBD3999.71EB5378@mindspring.com> References: <200305100726.h4A7QMM7039660@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Don Lewis wrote: > On 9 May, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Chris BeHanna wrote: > >> And, why aren't Bosko's patches in the tree? > > > > I don't know. I do know that they increased the minimum memory > > requirements by 4M (part of Bosko's approach to a fix requires > > linking the kernel with a base address aligned on a 4M boundary). > > How hard would it be to make this a compile time option? Small memory > machines are unlikely to want to use 4 MB pages anyway. In other words > a configuration option that would disable 4 MB pages and put the kernel > at its current location when set one way, and would enable 4MB pages and > relocate the kernel on a 4 MB boundary when set the other way. The KVA space size is a compile time option, and it changes the base address, so changing the relocation address is just a matter of a small amount of additional code; however, the locore.s and machdep.c and any other changes necessary to use the patch are much harder to make compile-time variant. Particularly the assembly code. > I really dislike our default configuration of a little bit more speed at > the expense of data integrity. If that's what I really wanted, I could > probably get even more speed by overclocking. Or running Linux. Or using background fsck. 8-) 8-). -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EBD3999.71EB5378>