Subject: Re: Virtual Memory Issues on 2.0
To: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr>
From: Greg A. Woods <woods@weird.com>
List: port-sparc
Date: 01/13/2005 17:03:16
[ On Thursday, January 13, 2005 at 12:55:17 (+0100), Manuel Bouyer wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Virtual Memory Issues on 2.0
>
> Here is what I have in my config file:
> options NKMEMPAGES_MAX="8192"   #32M

Ah ha!  That's what I thought you must have done (i.e. used
NKMEMPAGES_MAX instead of just NKMEMPAGES).

> It seems my 6095 comes from here:
> hw.physmem = 99860480
> 99860480 / 4 / 4096 = 6095
> 
> but them it seems that NKMEMPAGES_MIN_DEFAULT isn't respected.

Hmmmm  -- that is odd.

> The other strange thing is that I clearly remember adding the
> NKMEMPAGES_MAX option to my kernel config file, because without it
> the kernel wouln't even boot with raidframe.

I've been patching my configs with NKMEMPAGES_MAX for some time before I
started using RAIDframe on the sparcs -- I don't remember exactly why,
but probably because I had encountered the classic ``out of space in
kmem_map'' panics...

> Maybe it was before NKMEMPAGES_*_DEFAULT was changed.

It didn't really change -- NKMEMCLUSTERS was 6MB before too.

-- 
						Greg A. Woods

H:+1 416 218-0098  W:+1 416 489-5852 x122  VE3TCP  RoboHack <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>          Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>