Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Aug 1998 04:42:17 -0600 | From | Michael Driscoll <> | Subject | Re: A true story of a crash. |
| |
>Well, this overcommitment is fine in some cases, and not in others. A >kernel option that enables the no overcommit case would be nice for >some people. > >The argument FOR overcommitting memory is: > > Almost nobody check the malloc return values. And if they do, all > they do is bomb out with "out of memory". If you keep such a > process, it might even run to completion.
There are people out there who don't check the return of malloc()? Yuck. I've *always* made it a habit to define my own xmalloc() which bombs with an error messages on malloc() return of NULL. If there are people who don't check the return of malloc(), then they get what's coming to then (unpredictable crashes in heavy load, for one). Mike -- "You'd be fools to ignore the boolean anti-binary least-square approach!" Michael Driscoll, Engineering Geek. fenris@edgemail.com
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |