https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #11 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to Mark Johnston from comment #5)
Thanks for that note. The caching status after unmap
and after close and after process deletion has
helped clear out bad assumptions of mine, including
just
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #10 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to rozhuk.im from comment #8)
One difference in my test context and yours appears to
be that I'm not using any encryption layer but the .eli
in:
/dev/gptid/0714a812-b98e-11e8-a831-7085c23757
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #9 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to rozhuk.im from comment #6)
> On 10.1 this cache eat all free mem and all system freeze, if swap not
> enabled.
In what I describe below I was testing a head -r339076
based FreeBSD on an a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #8 from rozhuk...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Mark Johnston from comment #7)
Main problem is that dirty pages does not go to free after if flushed to disk,
and it cause swap usage.
On 10.1 - system can not allocate mem even after
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #7 from Mark Johnston ---
(In reply to rozhuk.im from comment #6)
Your test program is dirtying pages by writing to them, so the OS is forced to
flush them to disk before they can be reused. It is easy to dirty pages more
quick
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #6 from rozhuk...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Mark Johnston from comment #5)
On 10.1 this cache eat all free mem and all system freeze, if swap not enabled.
Now is better, but disk cache still cause swap usage or freezes (but le
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
Mark Johnston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #5 f
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #4 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to rozhuk.im from comment #3)
Looks like I misinterpreted the man page's description
the munmap does return 0 in the example.
Sorry for the noise for that point.
But may be a can make up for
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #3 from rozhuk...@gmail.com ---
Process memory usage does not grow, unmap should works fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bugs
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
Mark Millard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marklmi26-f...@yahoo.com
--- Commen
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195882
--- Comment #1 from rozhuk...@gmail.com ---
swap is off.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.o
11 matches
Mail list logo