Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:38:36 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] flexible-mmap-2.6.7-D5 |
| |
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> Also, I suspect some more graceful fallback would make sense > particularly for the case of RLIM_INFINITY, which would leave users > that run with, say, all rlimits at RLIM_INFINITY in the interest of > having full access to system resources with a mere 512MB of > virtualspace for the heap, which IIRC glibc is intelligent enough to > circumvent for malloc(), but not for mmap(NULL, ...). [...]
well, the 5/6=stack 1/6=malloc rule in the RLIM_INFINITY can be changed. What would make the most sense - 1/2 for both?
> If it's been in production that long, I find it hard to believe that's > never been tripped over. [...]
it's been tripped over and the 5/6 rule was a fix for such a bugreport. What happens more in practice frequently is that someone needs a big stack and sets the stack ulimit to RLIM_INFINITY.
> [...] (also, that 128MB is currently wasted); [...]
the 128MB is 'wasted' to give some flexibility to the stack rlimits changing runtime. But in practice it's far more important to have the mmap()/malloc() space maximized and flexible than to give the stack automatic flexibility.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |