lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Overcomittable memory (Was: Linux 2.2.15pre12)

> > A big rendering process that fork()/exec()s lpr.
>
> > Without overcommit you'd need to have the 500 MB of swap free
> > that the big simulation is using, even though it'll only use
> > 1 MB for the little process that's being exec()ed...
>
> This doesn't mean that overcommit is a good idea. It just means that
> fork()/exec() is not a good way of launching programs. Using overcommit to
> cover up for fork()/exec() deficiencies is like redirecting compiler
> warnings to /dev/null instead of fixing the code. The symptoms become less
> visible but the problem remains. The problem could be solved by introducing
> a new system call with the ability to start an external program as a new
> process.

fork()/exec() is the greatest thing to happen to UNIX and I trust you know
why. Using something like spawn() to invoke a new process would make me
feel dirty and in need of showering with brillo.

If just a few applications use spawn(), there's no gain. If all
applications use spawn(), then we've just butchered technology
and concepts that have been a part of people's lives for decades,
which helps make Linux far less attractive and appealing.

At least to me, anyway.

-MB


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.159 / U:25.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site