Hi, On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 03/29/2011 22:07, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >> >> ... or maintain internal changes to the driver to make it not that memory >> hungry/behave well under memory pressure, especially on system where >> memory_is_ a constraint. > > If you come up with patches, I'm sure everyone would like to see them. > No, I came with a patch, Jack sent it explicitly to /dev/null, telling me that what I was checking was not available in the mode the driver was in. Then I took the chip documentation, quoted all the chapters which lead me to believe that what I was checking _was_ available in the mode the driver was. I never got an answer. Unfortunately, all these discussion are not publicly available because Jack like doing things off the list.
The only things I've been able to get from Jack is "We, at Intel, test em(4) at 256k nmbclusters. We do not have problem. If you have problem, raise nmbcluster.". 256k nmbcluster in my environment is not acceptable. > Meanwhile, there are times where memory IS a constraint, and there are some > things you can't do without more of it. > yes, but the driver should not need a manual reset between the time resource are (heavily) scarce and the time it became available again. - Arnaud _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
