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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site