kostikbel at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 05:59:23 PST 2008
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:54:38AM -0500, Skip Ford wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Dag-Erling SmЬrgrav wrote:
> > >Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org> 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:
> ...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?
Oh, I thought that I was the sole user of the patch. What problems did you
encountered while testing it ?
What you mean by "do 90% of swap" ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20080104/78b2130c/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current