Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

On 2016-02-15 10:15, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: .. I think it got reverted by: .. but I'm not an expert so would wait on confirmation by Bob Beck. Yes, I think you are correct, and it was indeed reverted. .. But it looks like the functions that were introduced in the above commit are

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

On 14 February 2016 at 10:29, Karel Gardas wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Stuart Henderson > wrote: >> There was this commit, I don't *think* it got reverted. >> >> >> >> CVSROOT:/cvs >> Module name:src >> Changes by:

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > There was this commit, I don't *think* it got reverted. > > > > CVSROOT:/cvs > Module name:src > Changes by: b...@cvs.openbsd.org2013/06/11 13:01:20 > > Modified files: > sys/kern :

Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

Hi, Some quite deep reading [1] taught me that at least quite recently, there was a ~3GB cap on the buffer cache, independent of architecture and system RAM size. Reading the source history of vfs_bio.c [2] gives me a vague impression that this cap is there also today. Just wanted to

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

I think you would also like to investigate this one: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article=2006061416 > Some quite deep reading [1] taught me that at least quite recently, there > was a ~3GB cap on the buffer cache, independent of architecture and system > RAM size.

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

Dear Karel, Thanks - wait - this post from 2006 you mentioned now, is it saying that actually >32bit/>~3GB buffer cache IS SUPPORTED/WORKS on any AMD64 *with IOMMU* support in the CPU, and was working all the time?? (That would mean that I misunderstood those references I posted in the

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

I'm afraid you read too quickly and w/o attention to detail, please reread and pay special attention to the last paragraph. Especially to: "IOMMU is present in all "real" AMD64 machines, but not the Intel clones. Unfortunately, OpenBSD support for IOMMU on the AMD machines is not quite ready for

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

Aha. So the article is saying that full IOMMU support is waiting on all AMD64 machines (so that would mean any Intel and AMD-manufactured processor with VT-d etc.), and you're saying that this is what needs to be implemented for the buffer cache to finally get >32bit/>~3GB support? Are there

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

On 2016-02-13, Tinker wrote: > Hi, > > Some quite deep reading [1] taught me that at least quite recently, > there was a ~3GB cap on the buffer cache, independent of architecture > and system RAM size. > > Reading the source history of vfs_bio.c [2] gives me a vague

Re: Buffer cache made to use >32bit mem addresses (i.e. >~3GB support for the buffer cache) nowadays or planned soon?

On 2016-02-14 03:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2016-02-13, Tinker wrote: Hi, Some quite deep reading [1] taught me that at least quite recently, there was a ~3GB cap on the buffer cache, independent of architecture and system RAM size. Reading the source history of