From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault with large data-structures (bug)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 00:16:47 +0100
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:10:16AM +0100, Felix wrote:
But why not just use ulimit? It can be set per process, so I don't see
the need to have
On Feb 4, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Felix wrote:
Perhaps, but I really don't see a problem of allowing a limit
on heap allocation in the runtime system.
I think a segfault is an appropriate response to OOM, but I wonder
if it's possible to panic() instead if the heap size can't be increased
as
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:06:41PM -0600, Jim Ursetto wrote:
(bug found -- tl;dr see end of message)
Figured it out: you're exceeding the default maximal heap size, which is 2GB.
Speaking of which, I wondered about this before: why do we even _have_ a
maximum heap size? This is arbitrary and
Jim, that's great! Thank you so much!
I've read that facebook reached out billions of users. As I'm testing graph
implementations to create a graph database, do you believe this code could
handle billions nodes or I would need a lot more RAM to run it?
I'm not experienced in programming so I
Oh, and just to add info from another language
#include iostream
#include boost/graph/adjacency_list.hpp
using namespace std;
using namespace boost;
typedef adjacency_listvecS, vecS, directedS Graph;
int main()
{
const int VERTEXES = 25;
const int EDGES = 1000;
Graph g(VERTEXES);
* Arthur Maciel arthurmac...@gmail.com [130203 14:11]:
Oh, and just to add info from another language
#include iostream
#include boost/graph/adjacency_list.hpp
using namespace std;
using namespace boost;
typedef adjacency_listvecS, vecS, directedS Graph;
int main()
{
const int
Peter Bex scripsit:
Speaking of which, I wondered about this before: why do we even _have_ a
maximum heap size? This is arbitrary and awkward. For instance, on my
trusty old G4 iBook, 2G was way more than I actually had (512 MB), while
at work and on my new laptop it's a relatively small
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:15:12AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Bex scripsit:
Speaking of which, I wondered about this before: why do we even _have_ a
maximum heap size? This is arbitrary and awkward. For instance, on my
trusty old G4 iBook, 2G was way more than I actually had (512
Blunderingly I wrote:
On a 32-bit system, you can't by any means get more than a 4G memory
for any single process, short of heroic measures in the kernel that
allow you to assign the same virtual addresses to different physical
addresses at the same time.
I meant, of course, at different
From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault with large data-structures (bug)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:53:16 +0100
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:06:41PM -0600, Jim Ursetto wrote:
(bug found -- tl;dr see end of message)
Figured it out: you're exceeding the default
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:37:42PM +0100, Felix wrote:
The intention is to provide some sort of soft ulimit at the
application level, in case you want to make sure a certain maximum
amount of memory is not exceeded. Or if you want to benchmark memory
consumption, or do other whacky things. So
Peter Bex scripsit:
But why not just use ulimit? It can be set per process, so I don't see
the need to have a second ulimit-like limit inside each process.
+1
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb
Deus
From: Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault with large data-structures (bug)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 23:47:39 +0100
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:37:42PM +0100, Felix wrote:
The intention is to provide some sort of soft ulimit at the
application level, in case you want
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:10:16AM +0100, Felix wrote:
But why not just use ulimit? It can be set per process, so I don't see
the need to have a second ulimit-like limit inside each process.
Not everybody uses UNIX, you know.
I keep forgetting not everybody is lucky enough to use it.
Peter Bex scripsit:
Not everybody uses UNIX, you know.
I keep forgetting not everybody is lucky enough to use it.
More seriously, do modern OSes not have some sort of sane limiting
system? ulimit must be several decades old...
Windows System Resource Manager is our friend here: it
Hello! I don't know if it is related to Ivan's problem, but when I compile
and run this code:
(use srfi-69)
(define NODES 25)
(define EDGES 1000)
(define graph (make-hash-table))
(define (insert-edges)
(printf ~N Hash-tables - Inserting edges ~N)
(do ((n 1 (+ n 1))) ((= n NODES))
What version of chicken, and if 4.8.0 for example could you try 4.7?
On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:51, Arthur Maciel arthurmac...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello! I don't know if it is related to Ivan's problem, but when I compile
and run this code:
(use srfi-69)
(define NODES 25)
(define EDGES
I'm getting the same result here, when I run it through csc. When I run it
through csi, though, it never seems to finish - is the task that big? I had
to kill it after 2-3 hours.
[klm@kth ~]$ csi -version
CHICKEN
(c)2008-2012 The Chicken Team
(c)2000-2007 Felix L. Winkelmann
Version 4.8.1 (rev
Jim, I was running 4.8.0.1, but I tried 4.7.0.6 and got the same results.
Thanks for the attention.
2013/2/2 Jim Ursetto zbignie...@gmail.com
What version of chicken, and if 4.8.0 for example could you try 4.7?
On Feb 2, 2013, at 11:51, Arthur Maciel arthurmac...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello! I
I can also confirm experiencing the same kind of problems with 4.7.0.
However, this was always in conjunction with some FFI code, and only
recently I began suspecting that segfaults can occur in pure Scheme code.
Ivan
On Feb 3, 2013 9:11 AM, Arthur Maciel arthurmac...@gmail.com wrote:
Jim, I
On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote:
I'm getting the same result here, when I run it through csc. When I run it
through csi, though, it never seems to finish - is the task that big? I had
to kill it after 2-3 hours.
It's a hash table with 250,000 entries and 1,000 items
Kristian, thanks for reporting that.
I've been running through csi for aproxiamtely 10 hours and it never seems
to finish. I'm not sure this task is that big.
2013/2/2 Kristian Lein-Mathisen kristianl...@gmail.com
I'm getting the same result here, when I run it through csc. When I run it
(bug found -- tl;dr see end of message)
Figured it out: you're exceeding the default maximal heap size, which is 2GB.
For whatever reason, Chicken doesn't terminate reliably and with an error in
this situation, it just tries to continue.
Simply run your program with -:d to see:
$
On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Jim Ursetto wrote:
Uh oh, we've hit an actual bug now. Although we can get nodes up to
85000 by increasing max heap size from 2GB to 8GB, it appears to bomb
after the heap exceeds 4GB, maybe indicating some 32-bit sizes
left laying around in the code.
Hmm, could
OK, I patched the core and the program runs to completion. Patch forthcoming.
$ ./list-partials -:d -:hm16G
[debug] application startup...
[debug] heap resized to 1048576 bytes
[debug] stack bottom is 0x7fff6f80f4b0.
[debug] entering toplevel toplevel...
[debug] entering toplevel
25 matches
Mail list logo
