lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Memory overcommitting (was Re: http://www.redhat.com/redhat/)

    On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:

    > False. Linux fork() has a standard fork(), *NOT* a vfork.
    >
    > All modern *NIX'es uses Copy-on-write fork()'s, but that a very different
    > animal from a vfork()... Not that many *NIX'es have real vfork()'s...
    snip snip snip

    You know, linux could have a real vfork, I _think_ it would just be a
    case of giving the correct options to a clone() syscall.

    It might be useful when implementing a more facist mode wtr overcommits.

    >
    > One thing that is missing in Linux is the possibility to *disable* the
    > overcommitment, which is very usefull for some applications...

    --
    Rob. (Robert de Bath <robert@mayday.cix.co.uk>)


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.018 / U:34.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site