On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Peter Wemm <pe...@wemm.org> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Eitan Adler <ead...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On 10 November 2012 12:04, Alfred Perlstein <bri...@mu.org> wrote: >> >> Sure, if you'd like you can help me craft that comment now? >> > >> > I think this is short and clear: >> > === >> > Limit the amount of kernel address space used to a fixed cap. >> > 384 is an arbitrarily chosen value that leaves 270 MB of KVA available >> > of the 2 MB total. On systems with large amount of memory reduce the >> > the slope of the function in order to avoiding exhausting KVA. >> > === >> >> That's actually completely 100% incorrect... > > > Would it be a good idea to reference the other commit ref. numbers done > by dillon@ in the commit message, or would this be redundant?
Sadly not. There's so many layers of indirection and obfuscation of units that there isn't a commit message that explains the current state. You have to read the code and reverse the math. -- Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
