On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:55:29PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > Shm shouldn't be mapped in the kernel, so large values won't be that > bad.
But the way that shared mem is implemented means that larger values require a larger malloc(9), which can increase the pressure on kva space, which can panic your machine; in fact, there was someone asking about this on misc@ not too long ago. Changing this to a better data structure is on my list of things to (eventually) do. > > On Jan 27, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Tobias Ulmer <tobi...@tmux.org> wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:13:45PM -0700, Jeff Ross wrote: > >>I have searched (and searched) so I wonder if I'm running into the > >>i386 1GB limit I see referenced, as in the thread today about fsck > >>on larger partitions. > > > >Yes you do. Also, kernel memory is limited, insane shm value will > >probably (havn't looked at the code) have bad effects.
