Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:30:52 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Jake Burkholder <jake@locore.ca> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP Re: cvs commit: src/sys/conf options.i386 src/sys/i386/i386 bios.c locore.s machdep.c mpboot.s pmap.c vm86bios.s vm_machdep.c src/sys/i386/include _types.h bus_at386.h param.h pmap. Message-ID: <20030330152920.D6586@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20030330201113.GA32298@locore.ca> References: <200303300524.h2U5Ora7061852@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030330061301.GC21973@locore.ca> <20030330070723.GE21973@locore.ca> <20030330012410.I3292@odysseus.silby.com> <20030330201113.GA32298@locore.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > Do these changes allow something like a 3G KVA space without shrinking > > processes address spaces? > > No, it doesn't make the virtual address space any bigger, it just allows > more physical memory. This is a bit of a problem because the tunables that > are based on physical memory size don't scale well past 4G of ram, its easy > to end up with may too many vnodes. Is it practically possible with PAE and busdma'd drivers that such a configuration could work? > > it also be coaxed into acting in such a manner than busdma is _required_, > > so that a 256MB i386 box can be used to see if a driver is busdma > > compliant? > > Not really. The best way is to buy a sparc :). I suppose that you could > create your dma tags such that busdma thinks it needs to bounce, this would > at least test that you've got the right bus_dmamap_syncs. ie set lowaddr to > below the highest physical address in your machine. I'll give that a shot if I try to busdma a driver, thanks. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030330152920.D6586>