Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:03:27 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Can=E9vet?= <canevet@embl.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Swapped memory limited to about 500MB for a process ? Message-ID: <1347458607.4141.88.camel@pc437.embl.fr> In-Reply-To: <44y5kfgwxi.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <1347268974.4141.65.camel@pc437.embl.fr> <44k3w0ij6n.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <1347432178.4141.82.camel@pc437.embl.fr> <44y5kfgwxi.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-yS8310VM1ggOs3AycHSz Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 10:03 -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Micka=C3=ABl Can=C3=A9vet <canevet@embl.fr> writes: >=20 > > On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 13:05 -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >> Micka=C3=ABl Can=C3=A9vet <canevet@embl.fr> writes: > >>=20 > >> > I was impacted by a memory leak that has been fixed by this patch: > >> > http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/namei-leak.patch > >> > > >> > What I noticed when the server was paging is that it seems that only > >> > about 500MB of my 4GB swap partition was used before crashing. I was > >> > wondering why it didn't take the whole 4GB up to the crash of the se= rver > >> > because of lake of memory (that would let me more time to react). > >> > > >> > Is there such king of setting that prevent a process to put more the= n > >> > 500MB of data in swap ? > >>=20 > >> limits(1)? > >>=20 > > Thank you for your answer. > > > > Here is the result of limits: > > > > limits > > Resource limits (current): > > cputime infinity secs > > filesize infinity kB > > datasize 33554432 kB > > stacksize 524288 kB > > coredumpsize infinity kB > > memoryuse infinity kB > > memorylocked infinity kB > > maxprocesses 5547 > > openfiles 11095 > > sbsize infinity bytes > > vmemoryuse infinity kB > > pseudo-terminals infinity > > swapuse infinity kB > > > > swapuse is set to unlimited, but stacksize is set to 512MB. > > Is it the stacksize setting that prevent my kernel to swap more then > > 512MB ? >=20 > No, I don't think so. datasize was the parameter I was most > suspecting; and it assumes that a particular process was causing the > crash (which is unlikely; the OS is supposed to protect you against > it).=20 >=20 > Most likely, the crash was not directly caused by a shortage of virtual > memory. You would have to diagnose through crash dumps, but it could be > that some more specific resource was exhausted. Or perhaps the memory > leak left dangling references in a vnode. >=20 OK, Thanks a lot for your explanations. Cheers, Micka=C3=ABl --=-yS8310VM1ggOs3AycHSz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAlBQli8ACgkQZjBmN5Hi/YYZxwCcC1H2xwJ8xyuKR1yQXYTw4j9Z hHUAn1A45LJ5zhHFwFusfoimrbchpWK1 =maKz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yS8310VM1ggOs3AycHSz--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1347458607.4141.88.camel>