From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:10:35 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Subject: Re: Stuck at 1GB again Message-ID: <20000903121035.B7551@redhat.com> References: <20000902115032.A2764@top.worldcontrol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20000902115032.A2764@top.worldcontrol.com>; from brian@worldcontrol.com on Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:50:32AM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Brian Litzinger , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:50:32AM -0700, brian@worldcontrol.com wrote: > The kernel is compiled with the 4GB option. (which I think is > the 2/2GB option from 2.2.x kernels). I believe the option is > supposed to assign 2GB of address space to real memory, and > 2GB to virtual memory (from a per process point of view). No, it's much better than that in 2.4! The 2.4 4GB option still has the 3+1 split, and only maps the first just-under-1GB of physical memory into the kernel's permanent VA space. The rest of the memory is mapped on demand. > Without glibc 2.2 I should be able to get to 2GB of memory > allocated via the heap. I only need glibc 2.2 to start > mmap'ing malloc'able pools from VM. I.E. beyond 2GB of > malloc'ed memory. Right. > My app running with 1 GB RAM under linux 2.2, with glibc 2.2 > successfully malloc's up to 3GB and the app works fine. (though > swapping quite a bit). > > My app running with 2 GB RAM under linux 2.4.0-test7, with glibc 2.2 > dies at 1 GB of memory used. (it also dies at 1 GB using glibc 2.1.2). What happens at this point? If you strace the binary, what fails? --Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/