Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 22:31:57 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Jim Shankland <jas@flyingfox.COM> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, robseco@wizard.teksupport.net.au Subject: Re: mb_map full Message-ID: <199609250531.WAA05649@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:30:24 PDT." <199609241630.JAA13814@saguaro.flyingfox.com>
next in thread | previous 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 Yes, it eliminates the panic. >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 Yes, there is a limit on the allocations that will prevent them from consuming the entire map. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609250531.WAA05649>