Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 May 2002 14:56:32 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: Memory management in Kernel 2.4.x |
| |
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:22:22PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> Well, if you can't fork a new process because that would push you into >>> overcommit, then you usually can't actually do anything useful on the >>> machine.
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 22:33, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: >> Just use vfork or clone + exec. It's faster and uses less memory.
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:50:31PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > In the general case a fork doesn't cause too much overcommit. Most of > the binary is mapped read-only as is a lot of the library space. Since > its read only and backed by a file it has zero cost. If you mprotect it > then you pay at mprotect time
If you're willing to take a feature request, I'd be much obliged if the pagetable memory were also accounted.
Thanks, Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |