Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:08:35 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>, Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> Subject: Re: sbrk(2) broken Message-ID: <8680.1199696915@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:48:29 %2B0200." <20080104134829.GA57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20080104134829.GA57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>, Kostik Belousov writes: >On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:12:50PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: >> "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> writes: >> > This makes memory management in the userland hideously and >> > unnecessarily complicated. It's simpler to have SIGDANGER [...] >> >> You don't seem to understand what Poul-Henning was trying to point out, >> which is that broadcasting SIGDANGER can make a bad situation much, much >> worse by waking up and paging in every single process in the system, > >By making the default action for SIGDANGER to be SIG_IGN, this problem >would be mostly solved. Only processes that actually care about SIGDANGER >and installing the handler for it would require some non-trivial and >resource-hungry operation. This is a non-starter, if SIGDANGER is to have any effect, all processes that use malloc(3) should react to it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8680.1199696915>