Re: Recent bugfixes.

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 18:13, Anders Magnusson <ragge%tethuvudet.se@localhost> wrote:
>
> Den 2023-03-26 kl. 18:29, skrev Rhialto:
> > On Sun 26 Mar 2023 at 16:28:52 +0200, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> >> Please look at the patch:
> > [ correctly limits the total size ]
> >
> >> After everything is calculated I check if kvmsize gets larger than 1G, and
> >> in that case truncates it to 1G.
> >> I haven't changed the calculations.
> > But that's my point. For smaller memory sizes, it likely calculates a
> > bigger page table size than needed (by counting things double) (and thus
> > wastes memory on the page table).
> >
> > That is of course a different bug, but now that we're looking at
> > this area of code we might well think about how it should be.
> That is the problem - there is no usable way to know how much virtual
> memory is needed in advance since most data structures is allocated on
> demand.
> Doubling avail_end seemed to be a working way to match the memory that
> might be allocated (by using empirical tests, some 20 years ago).

Could there be a comment to this effect in the code, to help anyone
else coming later? :)

Also, assuming this works out well could it be submitted to pullup to
-10, -9 and even -8?

Very much thanks for the fix :)

David