Re: more about proc

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 01:37:38AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Yes, I guess I didn't write the second sentence of my thought.
> The large stack is suspect in the general case.  It can use malloc.

Which makes all the difference!

  PID TT STAT     TIME COMMAND
 4119 co S     0:00.09 screen
 4124 p0 R     3:04.67 forks 100000 1000
87394 p1 S     0:00.01 ps

  PID  UID TH  Vmem   RSS     User   System Args
    0    0 15  132M 2.09M  2:50.25  1:39.59 /hurd/proc

The forks 100000 test did crash much earlier (at around 60000) in all
tests before, and we know why now.  And while I am writing this,
it is at 95000 and still crunching happily.

I will commit an appropriate change tomorrow (if you don't beat me).
Note that the proc I am using right now is from 0718 with few changes.
The wrap around fix is not included, as can be seen above.
Maybe this is what triggers the enormous libihash growth,
so I will keep it this way until that one is fixed, too.

ulysses:~# forks 100000 1000
Time: 892 seconds.
ulysses:~# echo What a relief\!
What a relief!

Thanks,
Marcus