From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep 28 13:34:53 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA6316A418
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:34:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from cb@severious.net)
Received: from ion.gank.org (ion.gank.org [69.55.238.164])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D9413C46A
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:34:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from cb@severious.net)
Received: by ion.gank.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 00FAC11100; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:34:52 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:34:52 -0500
From: Craig Boston <cb@severious.net>
To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
Message-ID: <20070928133452.GA52277@nowhere>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46F7D7A4.5090007@samsco.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Cc: Darren Reed <darrenr@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org,
	Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org>
Subject: Re: panic: kmem_malloc(131072): kmem_map too small (AMD64)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:34:53 -0000

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:28:36AM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> You're all missing the point, I hate to say.  What happened is that a
> change was made recently to more accurately account for allocated
> memory.  Now people are getting kmem_map_too_small panics that weren't
> getting them before.  So while the accounting is now more accurate,
> the outcome is actually harmful.  That needs to be fixed before the
> release.

Agreed.  A month ago I had zfs running perfectly on many different i386
machines (albeit with some tweaking to kernel parameters).  With a
week-old current, it always panics sooner or later now, no matter how
low I set the ARC cache size or maxvnodes or how much I pump into
kmem_size.

Now kmem_map panics are being reported on amd64, which was pretty much
unheard of before.

If I can track down the exact change I'll just back it out of my local
tree.

Craig