"Rask Ingemann Lambertsen" <rask@kampsax.k-net.dk>:
>
> Den 06-Mar-00 16:29:18 skrev Rik van Riel følgende om "Re: Linux 2.2.15pre12":
>
> > Think about running a big simulation process that fork()s to
> > exec() /bin/mail in order to email its status or a partial
> > solution to the person that started the simulation.
>
> > A big rendering process that fork()/exec()s lpr.
>
> > Without overcommit you'd need to have the 500 MB of swap free
> > that the big simulation is using, even though it'll only use
> > 1 MB for the little process that's being exec()ed...
>
> This doesn't mean that overcommit is a good idea. It just means that
> fork()/exec() is not a good way of launching programs. Using overcommit to
> cover up for fork()/exec() deficiencies is like redirecting compiler
> warnings to /dev/null instead of fixing the code. The symptoms become less
> visible but the problem remains. The problem could be solved by introducing
> a new system call with the ability to start an external program as a new
> process.
Or an option to fork to never allocate memory to this process - cleared
on exec of course. This becomes the equivalent of the "vfork" thread
repeated much earlier too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
-
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 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:25 EST