Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:50:20 +1000
From:      Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>
To:        Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: malloc does not return null when out of memory
Message-ID:  <20030724215020.GV430@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3F1F45E2.5080506@mukappabeta.de>
References:  <20030723173427.GA72876@vmunix.com> <20030723140329.C92624@carver.gumbysoft.com> <20030723221336.GA26555@pit.databus.com> <20030723223654.GA24008@moghedien.mukappabeta.net> <20030723224436.GD22166@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20030724021726.GJ430@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> <3F1F45E2.5080506@mukappabeta.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2003-Jul-24 04:35:14 +0200, Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de> wrote:
>What makes me ask the following (note that it's neither a flame, nor a 
>suggestion).  Does FreeBSD actually account the used swap/vm so far (it 
>needn't since it doesn't guarantee that it'll be available, with 
>overcommit) or does it not do that (i.e., it has no idea of how much vm 
>was requested by all processes so far, without having to go through the 
>maps of all processes, of course)?

Have a look at how systat(1) or top(1) calculate the number they
report.  AFAIK, the kernel doesn't accumulate this information into a
single total or make use of it in VM allocation decisions.

>  And is it planned in the (distant) 
>future to add a knob to toggle overcommitting of swap?

All I can say is I'm unaware of any such plan.  Based on the previous
threads, the VM experts appear to be either against this or don't see
any benefit.

>  While with large 
>disks and hence swap sizes this probably isn't a pressing problem for 
>most applications, it might be nice to be able to control the system not 
> to randomly kill off applications or force the user to meticulously 
>plan and calculate memory load of the planned application zoo in order 
>to tune the ulimits of various memory-hungry processes in a way that 
>they'll all fit into swap in the worst case situation.

This comes up every time this thread starts.  As I said before - read
the archives.  If you think you have a solution that works and avoids
at least the larger pitfalls (see the archives), you need to provide
patches (or show a willingness to pay someone else to write the code).

Peter



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030724215020.GV430>