From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 18 02:27:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52771106566C for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:27:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emailrob@emailrob.com) Received: from mx01.dls.net (mx01.dls.net [216.145.245.197]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34AA98FC17 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:27:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [216.145.235.208] (helo=emailrob.com) by mx01.dls.net with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P7fRN-000219-9V; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:27:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4CBBA26C.9030701@emailrob.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:27:08 +0100 From: spellberg_robert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fbsd_questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [fbsd_questions] 7.3 , 8.1 , je_malloc , mmap , brk , gcc X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:27:11 -0000 greetings, all --- this is a follow_up to my recent inquiry. a while back, i took apart mr. kamp's malloc(3), so, i have a fair idea of its operation. i have not, as yet, done the same for its replacement. therefore, treat these questions, regarding je_malloc(3), as coming from a user. q: given that brk(2) and sbrk(2) can fail due to an interaction with the swapper, does mmap(2) suffer from the same issue, given that it has to "look up" the things that brk(2) already knows about ? q: if mmap(2) does not have this problem, then does that mean that if i use only the "m" option to je_malloc(3), it will fail only when it --really_is-- out_of_memory, including insufficient data_size resource_limit [ increasing resource_limits are a separate topic ] ? q: if mmap(2) --does-- still have this interaction, then should i continue to check resource_limits to be sure ? separately, q: is gcc(1) still at 4.2.1 ? q: if so, what plans are there for which next_version and when ? tia. rob