Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2000 10:18:52 +1200 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: On the issue of low memory situations |
| |
On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 04:24:49PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I haven't read through this whole thread, so this may have been > suggested, but why not have a new signal "SIGNMEM". Can't be caught but > can be ignored. Default is to take the signal and terminate the program > that faulted. If ignored, put process to sleep until the memory request > can be satisfied. Then something like 'X' or apache could ignore, while > 'gcc' would just die.
We've run out of non-rt signals. We could bump this up a bit and if we do decide to it should be done _now_ to minimize and ABI breakage later on (I've been looking at such a thing myself recently).
The sticky part is -- I'm not sure how well this will work with glibc as it seems to have similar assumptions in there.
I really hope that if we do even need to extend this, we don't end up with multiple signal system calls to maintain backwards compatibility, such a thing is horribly ugly IMO.
-cw
- 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/
| |