Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:53:27 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: latest kernel issue ... or increased KVA_FILES ... ? Message-ID: <xzpel6arego.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20030214121353.T76487@localhost> (The Hermit Hacker's message of "Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:20:53 -0400 (AST)") References: <20030214065945.L76487@localhost> <20030214115355.GA424@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030214121353.T76487@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > When Tor suggested changing this to me, he mentioned "This reduces the > address space available for userland processes, but very few applications > need more than 1 GB for data in a single process." ... now, if I'm > understanding this correctly, if I set it to 512, a single process won't > be able to exceed 2GB (*very* unlikely), but what happens if it does? > Does the process just crash, but the system remains running? mmpa() will fail and malloc() will return NULL when the process runs out of address space, and the process will segfault if it does not adequately handle those failures. Note that this can happen long before the system runs out of actual memory and swap, e.g. if the process mmaps large files. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpel6arego.fsf>