Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:19:00 -0700 From: mdf@FreeBSD.org To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: brueffer@freebsd.org Subject: Re: memguard(9) rewrite, part 2 Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1OTexjSvVNc_wpwmdznuWr7=iDxaY17ByUtFx@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikhJZh3QXZbO0YJcsj%2B2H=HDpTnYgtD9=8hz%2BG4@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTikhJZh3QXZbO0YJcsj%2B2H=HDpTnYgtD9=8hz%2BG4@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:01 AM, <mdf@freebsd.org> wrote: > Back in March I asked about interest in a memguard(9) redo. =A0I've had > the time to get the code to a place I'm pretty happy with, and we've > successfully used it at work without running into some of the resource > limitations that the original memguard(9) gave. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/bsd-memguard.diff > > The gist of the new implementation is to reserve a lot of KVA for > memguard(9) to use, and then to avoid re-using KVA as long as > possible. =A0Rather than keep the physical pages around, though, on > free(9) the pages are returned to the system. =A0The KVA is allocated > using vm_map_findspace() from a current pointer into the memguard_map, > which is incremented until the end of the map is encountered, at which > time it wraps. =A0This is a "free" way to avoid re-use of KVA as long as > possible; any other scheme requires more than O(1) data to track what > has been used. I have a diff of my proposed man page update at http://people.freebsd.org/~mdf/bsd-memguard.9.diff ; my mdoc skills are in their infancy so any suggestions are welcome. Thanks, matthew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=1OTexjSvVNc_wpwmdznuWr7=iDxaY17ByUtFx>