Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:02:53 -0800 | From | Linda Walsh <> | Subject | Re: Virtual vs. physical swap & shared memory forks (clone) |
| |
Richard Gooch wrote: > > Linda Walsh writes: > > > Removing overcommit might make malloc() return null, but that's only one > > > of a host of ways to allocate memory. The other methods don't have a > > > return value. So arguing that "overcommit is bad, because it breaks the > > > malloc() return value" is pointless. > > > > What other methods? calloc - ENOMEM, open <object>, ENOMEM, fork: > > ENOMEM. Etc. All what you would expect if there was NOMEM. > > Stack "allocation". No error code available. > --- Except via "SIGSTKFLT" (16) - Sig Stack Fault if 'caught' -- likely resulting in a suspend of the process? Is state saved on kernel or on user stack? Seems like it couldn't be on the user stack, otherwise, how could you deliver it?
-l
-- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338
- 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/
| |