Re: using more physical memory?

From: Christopher A. Kantarjiev (cak_at_dimebank.com)
Date: 06/22/05

  • Next message: Marco S Hyman: "Re: using more physical memory?" 
    Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 20:48:35 -0700

    Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
    > "tedu" <tu@zeitbombe.org> writes:
    >
    >>have a look at the new malloc.c in cvs. it uses mmap.
    >>(the kernel has since changed to account mmap as part of your data
    >>limit, but not in 3.7)
    >
    >
    > Mmap and/or the page table code has also changed for the better since
    > the last time I tried my mmap test. I can now mmap 127.50 TB .
    >
    > Now I'm not brave enough to try to read past the end of my mmapped
    > file. I'm assuming it allows the mmap to extend past the end of the
    > underlying file but will hit one with a SIGBUS if one actually tried
    > to access it?
    >
    > -wolfgang

    *tera*bytes? Really? Maybe gigabytes? That would be more or less consistent with
    my results.

    I mean, there are only 32 address bits...

  • Next message: Marco S Hyman: "Re: using more physical memory?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: mremap() use is racy
      ... Because the underlying file isn't larger than the initial mapping. ... Using mmap with a too-large size for the underlying file and then hoping ... It is the reason why there is mremap(). ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [PATCH next] sysfs: fix some bin_vm_ops errors
      ... (substitution done because some versions of X crash if that mmap fails). ... Checking that the underlying file is the same is good. ... I agree about it being easy enough to add stubs later if required. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)