lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
Date
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
>Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil> said:
>
>[...]
>
>> I wonder if it could be coded as
>> fork() --- reserve one or two pages for anticipated fork.
>> on next page fault or syscall -- If page fault or non-exec syscall,
>> reserve the entire worst case memory amount.
>
>Here your fork(2) could fail, if no overcommit. But the fork() in the
>parent has already returned...

Yup - it is possible. This is (to me) the major difference between the
way vfork SHOULD work without overcommit, and the fork does with overcommit.

What was attempted was a partial reserve, rather than reserving the entire
amount. This would have been applied to the child and not the parent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@cats-chateau.net

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

-
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:0.046 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site