From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from viefep18-int.chello.at ([213.46.255.22]:12167 "EHLO viefep14-int.chello.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751063AbXFNSdI (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:33:08 -0400 Subject: RE: [patch 0/3] no MAX_ARG_PAGES -v2 From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01AF8CE6@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01AF8CE6@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:32:43 +0200 Message-Id: <1181845964.5806.2.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Ollie Wild , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen List-ID: On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:22 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > Interesting. If you're exceeding your stack ulimit, you should be > > > seeing either an "argument list too long" message or getting a > > > SIGSEGV. Have you tried bypassing wc and piping the output straight > > > to a file? > > > > I think it sends SIGKILL on failure paths. > > Setting stack limit to unlimited I managed to exec with 10MB, and > "wc" produced the correct output when it (finally) ran, so no > odd limits being hit in there. Ah, good :-) > Ah ... running the 34*100K case direct from my shell prompt, I > do see a "Killed" that must get lost when I run this in the > shell script loop. Yes, so it seems we just trip the stack limit after we cross the point of no return. I started looking into growing the stack beforehand and perhaps shrinking the stack after we're done. That would get most if not all these failures before the point of no return. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: RE: [patch 0/3] no MAX_ARG_PAGES -v2 From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01AF8CE6@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <617E1C2C70743745A92448908E030B2A01AF8CE6@scsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:32:43 +0200 Message-Id: <1181845964.5806.2.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Ollie Wild , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen List-ID: On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 11:22 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > Interesting. If you're exceeding your stack ulimit, you should be > > > seeing either an "argument list too long" message or getting a > > > SIGSEGV. Have you tried bypassing wc and piping the output straight > > > to a file? > > > > I think it sends SIGKILL on failure paths. > > Setting stack limit to unlimited I managed to exec with 10MB, and > "wc" produced the correct output when it (finally) ran, so no > odd limits being hit in there. Ah, good :-) > Ah ... running the 34*100K case direct from my shell prompt, I > do see a "Killed" that must get lost when I run this in the > shell script loop. Yes, so it seems we just trip the stack limit after we cross the point of no return. I started looking into growing the stack beforehand and perhaps shrinking the stack after we're done. That would get most if not all these failures before the point of no return. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org