Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:16:23 -0500 (EST) | From | Michael Bacarella <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |