Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:54:38 -0500 From: Skip Ford <skip@menantico.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dag-Erling =?unknown-8bit?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: sbrk(2) broken Message-ID: <20080104135438.GA788@menantico.com> In-Reply-To: <20080104110511.S77222@fledge.watson.org> References: <477C82F0.5060809@freebsd.org> <863ateemw2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080104002002.L30578@fledge.watson.org> <86wsqqaqbe.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080104110511.S77222@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >>The right answer is presumably to introduce a new LIMIT_SWAP, which > >>limits the allocation of anonymous memory by processes, and size it to > >>something like 90% of swap space by default. > > > >Not a good solution on its own. You need a per-process limit as well, > >otherwise a malloc() bomb will still cause other processes to fail > >randomly. > > That was what I had in mind, the above should read RLIMIT_SWAP. Are you referring to the implementation of RLIMIT_SWAP in the overcommit-disable patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/overcommit/index.html ...or some other as yet unwritten implementation? That patch doesn't currently do 90% of swap but easily can. That's been available for almost 3 years now. I tested it at one point but not lately and it never went into production. Do you, and others, have a problem with that implementation? -- Skip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080104135438.GA788>