Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:18:57 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261917120.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <200102262002.f1QK2N612484@guild.plethora.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Peter Seebach wrote: > In message <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261650340.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>, > >And maybe, just maybe, they'll succeed in getting their > >idea of non-overcommit working with a patch which doesn't > >change dozens of places in the kernel and doesn't add > >any measurable overhead. > > If it adds overhead, fine, make it a kernel option. :) > > Anyway, no, I'm not going to contribute code right now. If I get time > to do this at all, I'll probably do it to UVM first. > > My main objection was to the claim that the C standard allows > random segfaults. It doesn't. And yes, bad hardware is a > conformance violation. :) I don't think a failed kernel-level allocation after overcommit should generate a segfault. IMHO it should send a bus error (or a sigkill if the process doesn't exit after the SIGBUS). Rationale: SIGSEGV for _user_ mistakes (process accesses wrong stuff) SIGBUS for _system_ errors (ECC error, kernel messes up, ...) cheers, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261917120.5502-100000>