Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:27:41 +0200 From: Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: sbrk(2) broken Message-ID: <E1JAg1t-0000Yt-0f@clue.co.za> In-Reply-To: Message from Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:26:31 GMT." <20080104002002.L30578@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > to break (tm), killing of other large processes, etc. To be clear, > in the new world order, instead of getting NULL back from malloc(3), > SIGKILL is delivered to large processes. I'm not sure that I like that very much. At least the way that it has been explained here so correct me if I misunderstood. I have long lived processes that continuously handle very valuable data and potentially get very large (several GB). I'd like that process to be able to make a rational decision about what happens to its memory contents when an allocation fails rather than having the proverbial rug pulled out from under it. Rug pulling at any point can cost an annual salary or two. Ian -- Ian Freislich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1JAg1t-0000Yt-0f>