lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:1.864 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site