From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 14 18:09:06 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DAA916A41F; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:09:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D0B13C45B; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:09:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5EI91tM027133; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:09:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Jin Guojun Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:03:46 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <466B2B9F.5010308@lbl.gov> <200706131001.25840.jhb@freebsd.org> <4670708A.5030805@george.lbl.gov> In-Reply-To: <4670708A.5030805@george.lbl.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706141403.47035.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:09:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/3419/Thu Jun 14 09:49:39 2007 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: questions@freebsd.org, freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what causes error -- ELF interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1 not found X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:09:06 -0000 On Wednesday 13 June 2007 06:32:42 pm Jin Guojun wrote: > Umm, the amount of physical memory has no bearing on how the virtual > address space for userland is laid out. Do you know what virtual memory > is and how it works? Your first e-mail seems to contradict this paragraph > as in your first e-mail you noted that the physical memory doesn't matter, > the solution was to not raise MAXDSIZ higher than 1GB and that is consist= ent > with running out of virtual address space due to MAXDSIZ reserving too mu= ch > address space for malloc(). > =20 > No quite clear on this. Does this mean that the MAXDSIZ cannot exceeed 1= GB=20 regardless > how many physical memory (say 16 GB) is installed? Then, this is=20 definitiely a software bug. > Then, somewhere the following checking is needed: > =20 > #if (MAXDSIZ > 1024 * 1024 * 1024) > #undef=A0=A0 MAXDSIZ > #define=A0=A0 MAXDSIZ=A0=A0 (1024 * 1024 * 1024) > #endif It depends on the app. Some apps you can crank the malloc space up a whole= =20 lot. Also, if you are running FreeBSD/amd64 and running a 32-bit binary=20 under freebsd32 emulation, then it has 4GB of VA space rather than 3GB, so= =20 you can give it more MAXDSIZ. It's really up to the user to only use a=20 maxdsiz that works. You can also adjust the hard limit before exec'ing a=20 process that needs a smaller dsize and leave MAXDSIZ larger for other=20 processes. Since it is dependent on things the compiler can't know about a= t=20 the build time of the kernel, we just let the user set it to whatever and i= f=20 they set it too high things break until they lower it. You can even set th= is=20 at boot time via 'kern.maxdsiz' tunable in the loader w/o needing to=20 recompile. =2D-=20 John Baldwin