X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=Z3Cq799T405Nb8T+SLEECW0kcR1ceJX8BpNQ5nHOdZo2rsheyxu9I
	tAFCBwJmd3Ar1n31lQfemn+Vyc0YKEbUzbmT9qzHzZMvPTpPLoL6TvGZsriXYn2n
	WIBrvX8cCnq+X2ZKnhvzFpJyVk9uKzo+gs22GHv2yi5UPFWQvbyLCk=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=UaG2JExWm09i4Q54puoyqGcHW6s=; b=oaegBQQ/xR+7Fr/O3+PdAuTlShnl
	/7TLTfUsKSxv8OhmuLFTS/Bj0DkZsHtC4YvJ22Pi7llOaLgmVDwTxWWLY78C60Tp
	Jm2XTmc15aKRnTCQIICN1wDWRtIrbgcCMUgCBDlCcVo876FJn554uiQW48veaQqb
	vpRFFaZPfazYOLw=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1,HELO_LOCALHOST,RCVD_IN_PBL,RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org
X-Mail-Handler:	Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX1/UREueO9JeoxmkGNR8OdpG
Date:	Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:03:49 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: xz -9 : Cannot allocate memory
Message-ID:	<20130830210349.GA975@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<50A41697 DOT 3080406 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <loom DOT 20130829T155739-66 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20130829T162752-851 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20130829151121 DOT GR21571 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <87ioyowbq9 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <loom DOT 20130830T111847-683 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20130830120244 DOT GV21571 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <loom DOT 20130830T143654-505 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <20130830174631 DOT GA8831 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130830190048 DOT GA21571 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20130830190048.GA21571@calimero.vinschen.de>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:00:48PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 30 19:46, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Aug 30 12:58, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> > Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at> cygwin.com> writes:
>> > > Yes, looks normal and expected from what you observed.  mmap commits
>> > > memory top-down and that was apparently the first free slot big enough
>> > > to fullfil the request.  The default heap size is 384 Megs and then
>> > > there's apparently not enough space anywhere.
>> > 
>> > Sorry if I'm dense, but does this mean that setting the default heap size to
>> > zero does in fact mean it's trying to use 374MiB... wait, yes it is: the
>> > memory map is the same when I'm setting the initial heap size to 384MiB with
>> > peflags.
>> > 
>> > So, even though that rather large heap is essentially unused at the point of
>> > failure and there is enough memory free just beyond the heap, the allocation
>> > still fails because both the existing heap and the free space are both
>> > smaller than what's requested?
>> 
>> Well, good question.  You could debug the sbrk function and see why
>> it fails to reserve the space.
>
>I just debugged this and it seems our sbrk implementation has a serious
>problem to extend the heap if the new chunk of memory requires to commit
>some of the existing heap and to reserve and commit some more space.
>It tries to reserve memory using the wrong address and the wrong size.
>It also uses a too simple method to commit the memory.  I'll apply a fix
>shortly.

It looked fine to me.

The only code change that I did make was to change your coercion of
pointers to ptrdiff_t types into (char *), since that is more in keeping
with the rest of the code.

I had a hard time reading the code with all of the cygheap-> pointers so
I changed two functions to be a user_info_heap methods.  That, IMO,
makes the code faster and more readable.

You probably saw that I fixed the USR1/USR2 issue.  That was a serious signal
bug.  I think both of those warrant a new release in fact.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -