Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1836 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 15:00:21 EST Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!metro!ipso!runxtsa!bde From: bde@runx.oz.au (Bruce Evans) Subject: Re: A comment on 0.1 + 0.2.1 patchkit's stability Message-ID: <1993Feb21.170343.20351@runx.oz.au> Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare. Sydney, Australia. References: <CGD.93Feb17150814@gaia.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <GENE.93Feb18171500@stark.stark.uucp> Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 17:03:43 GMT Lines: 21 In article <GENE.93Feb18171500@stark.stark.uucp> gene@stark.uucp (Gene Stark) writes: > >I was wondering if others were seeing this type of problem. I have noticed >that if a process allocates a large amount of memory so that its RSS is >increased, then those page frames seem to become permanently attached to >that process, even once they leave the RSS. For example, try starting There seems to be a leak of swap space whenever a partly-swapped out process forks. This will cause long-running processes like makes, shells and emacs's to leak a lot of memory as soon as swapping starts. >I haven't yet studied the VM code, so I didn't try to find this. Also, >I wondered if it would be a waste of time, since the word on the net seemed >to be that the Jolitz's were revamping the VM code for 0.2. Does anybody >already familiar with this part of the system know where to look for this >problem? You can look at current Mach sources. Even the ones from 2 years ago have many fixes that are not in 386BSD. -- Bruce Evans (bde@runx.oz.au)