From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 4 13:53:37 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E0916A41B for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:53:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net (vms173003pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E535213C459 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:53:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from skip@menantico.com) Received: from mx.menantico.com ([71.168.197.190]) by vms173003.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JU400GPCH66DDR3@vms173003.mailsrvcs.net>; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:51:42 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:54:38 -0500 From: Skip Ford In-reply-to: <20080104110511.S77222@fledge.watson.org> To: Robert Watson Mail-followup-to: Robert Watson , Dag-Erling =?unknown-8bit?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jason Evans , Poul-Henning Kamp Message-id: <20080104135438.GA788@menantico.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <477C82F0.5060809@freebsd.org> <863ateemw2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080104002002.L30578@fledge.watson.org> <86wsqqaqbe.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080104110511.S77222@fledge.watson.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Dag-Erling =?unknown-8bit?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jason Evans , Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: sbrk(2) broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:53:37 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > >Robert Watson writes: > >>The right answer is presumably to introduce a new LIMIT_SWAP, which > >>limits the allocation of anonymous memory by processes, and size it to > >>something like 90% of swap space by default. > > > >Not a good solution on its own. You need a per-process limit as well, > >otherwise a malloc() bomb will still cause other processes to fail > >randomly. > > That was what I had in mind, the above should read RLIMIT_SWAP. Are you referring to the implementation of RLIMIT_SWAP in the overcommit-disable patch at: http://people.freebsd.org/~kib/overcommit/index.html ...or some other as yet unwritten implementation? That patch doesn't currently do 90% of swap but easily can. That's been available for almost 3 years now. I tested it at one point but not lately and it never went into production. Do you, and others, have a problem with that implementation? -- Skip