On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>"A month of sundays ago Richard Gooch wrote:"
>> Look, I think it would be nice you you could provably ensure that
>> processes can be made safe from OOM. Some people will like that. But
>> until a lightweight, effective scheme is proposed that can support it,
>> I think we should steer clear of ad-hoc solutions that only give half
>> guarantees. It's better not to claim something at all than claim it
>> and people find out later it's not true.
>
>I believe that physical backing in swap for a processes stack pages is
>such a guarantee.
Not really. The stack dynamically grows. You can still run out of memory
when the stack grows, and then what do you do? Kill the program.
You could limit the stack size, but then you just kill programs earlier.
Dave
David Whysong dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu
Astrophysics graduate student University of California, Santa Barbara
My public PGP keys are on my web page - http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~dwhysong
DSS PGP Key 0x903F5BD6 : FE78 91FE 4508 106F 7C88 1706 B792 6995 903F 5BD6
D-H PGP key 0x5DAB0F91 : BC33 0F36 FCCD E72C 441F 663A 72ED 7FB7 5DAB 0F91
-
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 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:19 EST