On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Antti Kantee <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15/07/16 13:23, Neeraj Sharma wrote:
>>
>> As anticipated Erlang
>> VM is requesting for larger chunk 1GB of memory while VM is running
>> 256MB which surprisingly goes into an infinite loop within rumprun.
>>
>> I have raised an issue https://github.com/rumpkernel/rumprun/issues/81
>> to track the same and will be great if it's looked at.
>
>
> ic.  Well, that doesn't really seem too hard to fix, especially on the
> Erlang VM side.  It's a classic case of "we're running on top of virtual
> memory, so let's just allocate silly amounts".
>

I agree that application should be updated (at some point) to
understand the operating system it is running although rumprun does
make initial porting effort much easier. Having said that I believe it
will be easier (for debugging) to just fail the allocation instead of
just spinning infinitely from an end-use point of view. This will be
of great help to dev like me who did not write either software and
trying to make them work together :)

> For Rumprun, it's quasi-easy to fix.  It's actually quite hard to say when a
> memory allocation really can never succeed -- the classic CANFAIL memory
> allocation problem.  It's clear that you can never allocate a wired memory
> chunk larger than the amount of physical memory.  But how much smaller must
> you go before you've stepped out of the "abandon all hope" place?
>
> Since callers of rump_hypermalloc() aren't stupid (they're kernel code), I'd
> say that the right fix is to call hypermalloc with waitok = false and put
> some sort of uvm_wait() logic into mmapmem_alloc().
>

I am still going through the rumprun source (in bits and pieces) at
much slower pace to comment. I do intend to spend more time to get a
better handle of things but it will be great to have a quick
workaround (and fail) for obvious cases.

Is there a cleaner/better way to remove mmap support in rumprun, so
applications wont find it and am curious to see how that goes with my
case (for the fun of it though).

-Neeraj

Reply via email to