From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 27 04:37:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3091E16A403; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:37:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD32A43D4C; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:37:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8R4bn00016444; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:37:55 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <451A001D.3040005@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:37:49 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Mikkelsen References: <003001c6e119$b7d59e20$c801a8c0@transactionware.com> In-Reply-To: <003001c6e119$b7d59e20$c801a8c0@transactionware.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch: sym(4) "VTOBUS FAILED" panics on amd64, amd64/89550 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 04:37:58 -0000 Jan Mikkelsen wrote: > Attached is a simpler patch, after some feedback from Stefan over general > niceness. > > It removes the amd64 special case by splitting the target member (an array > of struct sym_tcb) of sym_hcb out into a separately allocated structure. > This way there is never a need to allocate anything bigger than a page and > the whole problem goes away with minimal change, less wasted memory and > fewer outright hacks. > > I did spend some time looking at ripping out the custom allocator entirely, > and got as far as it building and one of the cache tests failing. I don't > think I'm going to spend the time to track down why; if anyone wants to > pick it up then let me know. > > Regards, > > Jan Mikkelsen Looks very reasonable. Stefen, did you want to handle getting this into CVS, or would you like me to do it? Scott