Subject: Re: lazy mlock?
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@buzzard.freeserve.co.uk>
From: Witold J. Wnuk <witek@wnuk.eu.org>
List: tech-kern
Date: 04/17/2002 10:55:19
On Wednesday 17 April 2002 00:03, you wrote:
> The problem was that ntpd was locking about 6M of RAM (~20%) down and
> killing that solved most of the thrashing issues. This got me to
> wondering if there was any way to make ntpd kinder to the system: it's
> well known that ntpd has a lot of code that just isn't needed on most
> machines.
Most of this 6MB is stackspace that is never used. On 64MB machine I've added:
Index: ntpd.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/basesrc/dist/ntp/ntpd/ntpd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.2 ntpd.c
--- ntpd.c 2001/09/16 07:51:55 1.2
+++ ntpd.c 2002/04/17 08:44:16
@@ -642,6 +642,10 @@
*/
}
#endif
+ {
+ struct rlimit rl = { 8 * 4096, 8 * 4096 };
+ setrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK, &rl);
+ }
#if defined(HAVE_MLOCKALL) && defined(MCL_CURRENT) && defined(MCL_FUTURE)
/*
afterwards:
root 240 0.0 2.4 712 1548 ?? S<s 29Mar02 3:03.69 /usr/sbin/ntpd
I believe something along the lines should go into the tree.
Same with cdrecord (it's even worse, as I use it on desktop machine that has
lot higher 'stacksize' limit).
Greetings,
Witold J. Wnuk