Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:30:24 -0700 From: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.COM> To: dg@root.com, jas@flyingfox.COM Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, robseco@wizard.teksupport.net.au Subject: Re: mb_map full Message-ID: <199609241630.JAA13814@saguaro.flyingfox.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Greenman writes: > The kmem_map full panic was the result of a mis-calculation of > the size of the map in 2.1R. The calculation didn't account for > the mb_map being a submap of it, and thus large mb_maps would > leave little space left over for the [much more important] > kmem_map. This was fixed in post-2.1 with the following commit: [ ... ] Thanks for the information. But does making the kmem_map larger, as you described, eliminate the panic, or just make it less likely? In other words, is the kmem_map now sized so that it can never possibly fill up? mbufs, for example (not clusters), still come out of the kmem_map, and I don't know of any a priori upper bound on the number of mbufs that can be consumed. It still seems that an unluckily timed call to malloc (resulting in a call to kmem_malloc) with WAITOK can trigger a panic. I will happily stand corrected if any of this is not right. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609241630.JAA13814>