Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:59:12 +0200
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Skip Ford <skip@menantico.com>
Cc:        Dag-Erling =?koi8-r?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, Jason Evans <jasone@FreeBSD.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: sbrk(2) broken
Message-ID:  <20080104135912.GB57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <20080104135438.GA788@menantico.com>
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> <20080104135438.GA788@menantico.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--A/AdVN8FDkvpDdxN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:54:38AM -0500, Skip Ford wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav 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,=
=20
> > >otherwise a malloc() bomb will still cause other processes to fail=20
> > >randomly.
> >=20
> > That was what I had in mind, the above should read RLIMIT_SWAP.
>=20
> Are you referring to the implementation of RLIMIT_SWAP in the
> overcommit-disable patch at:
>=20
> http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/overcommit/index.html
>=20
> ...or some other as yet unwritten implementation?  That patch doesn't
> currently do 90% of swap but easily can.  That's been available for almos=
t 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?
Oh, I thought that I was the sole user of the patch. What problems did you
encountered while testing it ?

What you mean by "do 90% of swap" ?

--A/AdVN8FDkvpDdxN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHfjuwC3+MBN1Mb4gRAgu6AJ0WRUc3vHQ9y+Xpk70YFOQZLoX+wwCggMq7
MRGydd9Q74RMjOes7k72EdE=
=YVBD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--A/AdVN8FDkvpDdxN--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080104135912.GB57756>