From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Nov 7 13:55:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE2637B4D7 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:55:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eA7LrB982768; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:53:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:53:11 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200011072153.eA7LrB982768@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Garance A Drosihn , Bruce Evans , Kirk McKusick , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softdep panic due to blocked malloc (with traceback) References: <27538.973633262@critter> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :>>we are short of KVM ? There are code which can free KVM with no :>>significant loss of anything but performance, if only we bother to :>>tell it to do so. There is absolutely no correlation, none whatsoever, between memory load and the amount of KVM the system is using. Zero. Zip. Nada. Trying to tie the two together is a complete waste of time. KVM utilization should be self regulating, but if you try to do something 'special' in low memory situations you will screw yourself badly ... you will make a system that is already inefficient from the load even more inefficient and less able to recover. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message