lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.356 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site