You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> on 2006/11/17 11:44:52 UTC
[drlvm] Java stack limits (was: Re: [drlvm][em64t] build fails)
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I think that it's totally unreasonable to have no upper bound on stack
> size. A Java virtual machine should never be able to hose a machine by
> sucking in all memory...
yeah, like those rotten C programs. You are damned if you do and damned
if you don't, since you'll upset people who hit any arbitrary limit that
you set on the stack size too. As we have seen, current impls do limit.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [drlvm] Java stack limits
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
This is weird.
According to my mail, Tim wrote this at 6:01 am :
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> Can we get the value from the harmonyvm.properties file?
>
> I think the question is what default value should you choose? I believe
> we all agree that it should be configurable, at launch time (e.g. -Xss
> -Xmso), and yes at install time maybe in the .properties file.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
I never saw this, because at 9:30am, I wrote :
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> yeah - the question is what the value should be.
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> Can we get the value from the harmonyvm.properties file?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mikhail
>>
So sorry - I didn't mean to ignore tim's reponse. I just never saw it...
geir
>
>> 2006/11/17, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>> I think that it's totally unreasonable to have no upper bound on stack
>>>> size. A Java virtual machine should never be able to hose a machine by
>>>> sucking in all memory...
>>> yeah, like those rotten C programs. You are damned if you do and damned
>>> if you don't, since you'll upset people who hit any arbitrary limit that
>>> you set on the stack size too. As we have seen, current impls do limit.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>>
>
Re: [drlvm] Java stack limits
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Can we get the value from the harmonyvm.properties file?
I think the question is what default value should you choose? I believe
we all agree that it should be configurable, at launch time (e.g. -Xss
-Xmso), and yes at install time maybe in the .properties file.
Regards,
Tim
> 2006/11/17, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> > I think that it's totally unreasonable to have no upper bound on stack
>> > size. A Java virtual machine should never be able to hose a machine by
>> > sucking in all memory...
>>
>> yeah, like those rotten C programs. You are damned if you do and damned
>> if you don't, since you'll upset people who hit any arbitrary limit that
>> you set on the stack size too. As we have seen, current impls do limit.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [drlvm] Java stack limits
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
yeah - the question is what the value should be.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> Can we get the value from the harmonyvm.properties file?
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/17, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> > I think that it's totally unreasonable to have no upper bound on stack
>> > size. A Java virtual machine should never be able to hose a machine by
>> > sucking in all memory...
>>
>> yeah, like those rotten C programs. You are damned if you do and damned
>> if you don't, since you'll upset people who hit any arbitrary limit that
>> you set on the stack size too. As we have seen, current impls do limit.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
Re: [drlvm] Java stack limits (was: Re: [drlvm][em64t] build fails)
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
Can we get the value from the harmonyvm.properties file?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/17, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > I think that it's totally unreasonable to have no upper bound on stack
> > size. A Java virtual machine should never be able to hose a machine by
> > sucking in all memory...
>
> yeah, like those rotten C programs. You are damned if you do and damned
> if you don't, since you'll upset people who hit any arbitrary limit that
> you set on the stack size too. As we have seen, current impls do limit.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
Re: [drlvm] Java stack limits
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> I think that it's totally unreasonable to have no upper bound on stack
>> size. A Java virtual machine should never be able to hose a machine by
>> sucking in all memory...
>
> yeah, like those rotten C programs. You are damned if you do and damned
> if you don't, since you'll upset people who hit any arbitrary limit that
> you set on the stack size too. As we have seen, current impls do limit.
Clearly the "suck all memory until the box turns over and wiggles it's
feet in the air" setting isn't needed by anyone. Is there some
reasonable heuristic based on heap defaults or settings?
geir
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>