From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] flexible-mmap-2.6.7-D5
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:34:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040619213433.GT1863@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040619113836.GA16197@elte.hu>
* 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, ...). [...]
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 01:38:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 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?
I had in mind fallback as opposed to a changed base, but a particular
choice of the base may cover enough cases. The bugreport below seems to
say there's no need for a change.
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
>> If it's been in production that long, I find it hard to believe that's
>> never been tripped over. [...]
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 01:38:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 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.
This sounds like nothing is needed, then.
* William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
>> [...] (also, that 128MB is currently wasted); [...]
On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 01:38:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 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.
Fishing around down there to utilize it for mmap() placement should
happen anyway if things fall back far enough in the top-down scheme.
Answers like "I've thought about it" or "I've seen this and dealt with
it" are good enough for me. There isn't much of a normative aspect to
user virtualspace layout.
Thanks.
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-19 21:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-18 21:38 [patch] flexible-mmap-2.6.7-D5 Ingo Molnar
2004-06-18 23:16 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-06-19 7:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-06-19 8:34 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-06-19 11:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-06-19 21:34 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-06-19 8:06 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040619213433.GT1863@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox