On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 March 2010 6:33:51 am K. Macy wrote:
>> The size change causes the initialization path to change in a way that
>> currently causes crashes.
>
> Are you planning on debugging it further? Does UMA_BOOTPAGES or NKPT need to
> be la
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 6:33:51 am K. Macy wrote:
> The size change causes the initialization path to change in a way that
> currently causes crashes.
Are you planning on debugging it further? Does UMA_BOOTPAGES or NKPT need to
be larger?
> On Mar 23, 2010 2:57 AM, "Ivan Voras" wrote:
>
> On
The size change causes the initialization path to change in a way that
currently causes crashes.
On Mar 23, 2010 2:57 AM, "Ivan Voras" wrote:
On 22 March 2010 23:39, Kip Macy wrote:
> Author: kmacy
> Date: Mon Mar 22 22:39...
Does this mean you have determined that aligning these structures is
On 22 March 2010 23:39, Kip Macy wrote:
> Author: kmacy
> Date: Mon Mar 22 22:39:32 2010
> New Revision: 205487
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205487
>
> Log:
> - enable alignment on amd64 only
Does this mean you have determined that aligning these structures is
not as beneficial o
Author: kmacy
Date: Mon Mar 22 22:39:32 2010
New Revision: 205487
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/205487
Log:
- enable alignment on amd64 only
- only align pcpu caches and the volatile portion of uma_zone
Modified:
head/sys/vm/uma_int.h
Modified: head/sys/vm/uma_int.h
==