lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: guarantee_memory() syscall?
On 29 Oct 2000, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com> writes:
>
> > Can anyone tell me about the viability of a guarantee_memory() syscall?
> >
> > [I'm thinking: it would either kill the process, or allocate all virtual
> > memory needed for its shared libraries, buffers, allocated memory, etc.
> > Furthermore, it would render this process immune to the OOM killer,
> > unless it allocated further memory.]
>
> Except for the OOM killer semantics mlockall already exists.

More to the point, "immortality" is NOT a desirable "feature": the OOM
killer just kills things which must be killed to protect the overall
system. We'll have a finely adjustable memory killer daemon soon, which
will be a better solution.


James.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.062 / U:14.316 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site