Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:47:25 +0100 From: michael schuster <michael.schuster@Sun.COM> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <3A9CD73D.655A4A53@Sun.COM>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Dillon wrote: > Allowing a program to run the OS itself out of VM, with or without > overcommit, is (being generous) just plain dumb. I'm not a fan of either (overcommit or non-), I can see advantages with both (seeing that Solaris, which I happen to work with, has one and FreeBSD the other), but your last remark does beg an answer: In a non-dedicated environment (ie a general-purpose Unix machine), it's the mix of applications that brings down your memory, not a single one. In such a situation I can imagine synchronous information to the effect "you're out of swapable memory" to be practical (that's the way Solaris implements it). I haven't thought this out in detail, but I also imagine it easier to handle ENOMEM than SIGDANGER, because of the synchronous nature of the first versus the asynchronous nature of the second. just my 2 euro cents Michael -- Michael Schuster / Michael.Schuster@sun.com Sun Microsystems GmbH / (+49 89) 46008-2974 | x62974 Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion' 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?3A9CD73D.655A4A53>