At 02:42 07/01/00 +0100, Peter Tufvesson wrote:
>Yes, so Linux can handle this if you have the source code. Now, this is
>not always the case. So if I have a pre-compiled program (commercial
>product, that is) that happens to use malloc() and not mmap(), I in fact
>have a system which only allows me 910MB per process.
not that i disagree with you ... but i'm sure that there is probably good
reason for the memory map being set up the way it currently is.
dare i suggest it, but how about talking to this commercial-vendor and
explaining to them that they need to use a different malloc.
alternately, glibc's malloc could be made more intelligent.
>I believe this can be improved radically. Let the heap grow upwards but
>the mmap are grow downwards! Voila, you can allocate up to 3GB of heap OR
>3GB of mmap! This is how Solaris handles the problem, by the way.
it is typically the case that programs that are designed to use large
amounts of RAM are already using mmap(), so the problem doesn't typically
exist . . .
cheers,
lincoln.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST