From owner-freebsd-current  Fri May 10 05:24:19 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id FAA12724
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 05:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA12719
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 10 May 1996 05:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Root.COM (8.7.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id FAA04291; Fri, 10 May 1996 05:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199605101222.FAA04291@Root.COM>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.Root.COM: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users), nisha@CS.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Max data segment size 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 May 1996 09:16:24 +0200."
             <199605100716.JAA23858@uriah.heep.sax.de> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 05:22:21 -0700
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>As Satoshi Asami wrote:
>
>> What are the rationales behind this being in a machine-specific system
>> header file, in other words, does this mean that I can't increase the
>> max data segment size beyond 128MB on an x86?
>
>Pending other explanations, i believe it's the size of the page tables
>(or page table directories?) reserved for these segments.

   There isn't any problem with increasing these limits as long as you realize
that it will allow users to more easily spam the system by consuming all of
the swapspace. They could probably do this, anyway, however.
   ...anyway, there isn't any problem with page tables or anything like that.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project