On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:08:40PM +, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > appears to increase Committed_AS by around 200kb. But we've committed to
> > providing it with 8MB for stack.
> >
> > How come this is correct?
>
> We've no more committed to providing each instance with 8MB of stack,
> than we've
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:06:21 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:33:20 +0200 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This question is relevent to 2.6.20.
> >
> > I noticed that if the RSS for the stack size is say, 8MB, running
> > a single-t
> > > With a typical size as a fuzz factor preaccounted in later kernels.
> >
> > Where's that done?
>
> I don't know what Alan is referring to there.
fs/exec.c - we add 20 pages to the stack vma size initially.
> We've no more committed to providing each instance with 8MB of stack,
> than we'v
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 03:36:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > > > Is this the intended behaviour?
> > > >
> > > > That sounds like a bug to me.
> > >
> > > I'm suspecting it's an oddity rather than a bug.
> >
> > It is intended behaviour.
>
> Each instance of
>
> main()
> {
> s
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:33:43 +
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Stack RSS should certainly be included in Committed_AS,
> > > but RLIMIT_STACK merely limits how big the stack vma may grow to:
> > > at any moment the stack vma is probably
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:33:43 +
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Stack RSS should certainly be included in Committed_AS,
> > but RLIMIT_STACK merely limits how big the stack vma may grow to:
> > at any moment the stack vma is probably very much smaller,
> > and only its current size is a
> Stack RSS should certainly be included in Committed_AS,
> but RLIMIT_STACK merely limits how big the stack vma may grow to:
> at any moment the stack vma is probably very much smaller,
> and only its current size is accounted in Committed_AS.
With a typical size as a fuzz factor preaccounted in
On 3/15/07, Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm guessing that the pthread stacks are mmap'ed as greatest extents
(probably because that's the easiest way to keep them apart), rather
than as small MAP_GROWSDOWN areas to be expanded later on fault.
Please all, forget about MAP_GROWSDOWN.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:33:20 +0200 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This question is relevent to 2.6.20.
> >
> > I noticed that if the RSS for the stack size is say, 8MB, running
I think you meant to say RLIMIT_STACK rather than RSS, didn
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:33:20 +0200 Dan Aloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This question is relevent to 2.6.20.
>
> I noticed that if the RSS for the stack size is say, 8MB, running
> a single-threaded process doesn't incur an increase of 8MB to
> Committed_AS (/proc/meminfo).
>
> Ho
Hello,
This question is relevent to 2.6.20.
I noticed that if the RSS for the stack size is say, 8MB, running
a single-threaded process doesn't incur an increase of 8MB to
Committed_AS (/proc/meminfo).
However, on multi-threaded apps linked with pthread (on Debian
Etch with 2.6.20 vanilla x86_64
11 matches
Mail list logo
