On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Saso Kiselkov <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 10/14/13 10:52 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > Oh right, we wrote that back when you could reasonably boot from UFS and > > then load the zfs kernel module afterward, when you might not have much > > free memory. We might want to keep something similar even if we reduce > > the contiguous address space requirement. Or not -- maybe it's > > reasonable to fail if there's < 0.1% free memory. > > > > [..snip..] > > > > 1. Because the code is nontrivial. I'm asking that you show an actual > > problem that this solves. E.g. failure to allocate virtual address > > space on Linux. The code isn't *that* complicated, so it's OK if the > > problem it solves is a relatively minor one. > > We've even had 128k allocations fail us in relatively recent history: > > http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/182191/2013/05/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/16:252/ That message is about failing due to running out of memory, which your changes don't address. Your changes address running out of virtual address space. --matt
_______________________________________________ developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
