From owner-freebsd-current Thu Mar 13 22:45:55 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15E037B401 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-233-57-224.client.attbi.com [12.233.57.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3225343F93 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.org) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2E6jpIX020535; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id h2E6jpkH020534; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:45:51 -0800 From: David Schultz To: Garrett Wollman Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_map.c vm_map.h vm_pageout.c Message-ID: <20030314064551.GA20255@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Garrett Wollman , current@FreeBSD.org References: <200303122313.h2CNDHMU046431@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030312175458.J32334@odysseus.silby.com> <20030313005115.GA11794@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <200303131641.h2DGfPOS078537@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303131641.h2DGfPOS078537@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thus spake Garrett Wollman : > < said: > > > A real problem is that a swapped out process' uarea has to be > > paged back in, even when no memory is available. I don't think > > there's an easy way around that, given that you need the uarea and > > kernel stack to handle the signal. > > But you don't, actually -- at least not to ``handle'' a SIGKILL. In > that case, you should be able to simply destroy the process and free > whatever swap it has been allocated without ever giving it control. > So is the issue that we don't want to send SIGKILL too aggressively, > and send some other signal to give the process a chance to exit > gracefully? Perhaps you don't technically need it since swapping doesn't swap out very much these days (and should probably go away). But you'd need to make some minor changes to signal delivery, or write a separate mechanism, in order to kill a process without swapping it in. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message