From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov 29 17:06:12 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23407106566B;
	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:06:12 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (cl-43.dus-01.de.sixxs.net
	[IPv6:2a01:198:200:2a::2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78738FC16;
	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:06:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (localhost.spoerlein.net [IPv6:::1])
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nATH6957003917
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:06:10 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
Received: (from uqs@localhost)
	by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nATH68lr003915;
	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:06:08 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from uqs@spoerlein.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:06:08 +0100
From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@spoerlein.net>
To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com>
Message-ID: <20091129170608.GN3406@acme.spoerlein.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@sippysoft.com>,
	Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>,
	FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
References: <4B1041EB.9020109@sippysoft.com> <4B1059CA.6040605@FreeBSD.org>
	<4B10687D.3050209@sippysoft.com> <4B107D29.5030307@FreeBSD.org>
	<4B10896E.3080201@sippysoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B10896E.3080201@sippysoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>,
	Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: heap limits: mmap(2) vs. break(2) on i386
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:06:12 -0000

On Fri, 27.11.2009 at 18:22:38 -0800, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Crazy idea, perhaps, but has anyone considered wrapping up sbrk(2) into 
> mmap(2), so that there is only one memory pool to draw from? Switch to 
> 64-bit certainly helps, however there are lot of 32-bit machines hanging 
> around and we will see them for a while in the embedded space. Certainly 
> current situation with two separate sources of heap memory is not normal.

Alternative and very low tech test:

- Remove sbrk() from libc and /usr/include
- Run port test build
- ???
- PROFIT!

It shall be interesting to see which ports blow up thanks to sbrk()
missing.

Regards,
Uli