Re: Virtual vs. physical swap & shared memory forks (clone)

From: Linda Walsh (law@sgi.com)
Date: Sat Mar 25 2000 - 18:02:53 EST

  • Next message: Albert D. Cahalan: "Re: Some interrupt latency figures for 2.3.99-pre3"

    Richard Gooch wrote:
    >
    > Linda Walsh writes:
    > > > Removing overcommit might make malloc() return null, but that's only one
    > > > of a host of ways to allocate memory. The other methods don't have a
    > > > return value. So arguing that "overcommit is bad, because it breaks the
    > > > malloc() return value" is pointless.
    > >
    > > What other methods? calloc - ENOMEM, open <object>, ENOMEM, fork:
    > > ENOMEM. Etc. All what you would expect if there was NOMEM.
    >
    > Stack "allocation". No error code available.
    > 

    ---
	Except via "SIGSTKFLT" (16) - Sig Stack Fault if 'caught' -- likely
resulting in a suspend of the process?  Is state saved on kernel or on
user stack?  Seems like it couldn't be on the user stack, otherwise, how could
you deliver it?

    -l

    -- 
Linda A Walsh                    | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
law@sgi.com                      | Voice: (650) 933-5338

    -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 25 2000 - 18:02:14 EST