From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from max.phys.uu.nl (max.phys.uu.nl [131.211.32.73]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA01961 for ; Sun, 3 Jan 1999 12:00:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 17:57:23 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: work around 1GB heap size limit In-Reply-To: <13965.22214.171983.180152@woensel.ics.ele.tue.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Raymond Nijssen Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Raymond Nijssen wrote: > I was wondering if there exists a general way to work around the > maximum heap size limit of 1 GB on Linux. (at least on the x86 > platforms). [snip] > The proposal is really whether it would be possible to make the > mappable region start at max_stack and to make it grow downward. > > The proposed segmentation looks like: > > 0xc0000000 - 0xffffffff : kernel memory > min_stack - 0xc0000000 : user stack -- grows downward > MIN_mmap - min_stack : mapped (mmap, shared mem/libs) -- grows DOWNward > 'brk' - MIN_mmap : free > `end' - 'brk' : heap -- grows upward > 0x00000000 - 'end' : text, bss, etc. This seems like a more-than-just-a-little-bit sane idea to me. Like Raymond, I'm not completely aware of the bolts and nuts we might be provoking with this action though... Stephen, Ben, what do you think? Did Raymond overlook something or do we have a winner? cheers, Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue? +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. riel@humbolt.geo.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/~riel | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org