On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 01:12:00PM -0400, a little birdie told me
that Mikhail Teterin remarked
> Aha, now its clearer. May be, since we are do not conform anyway,
> we can design some clever way of notifying a program rather then
> SIGKILL-ing it?
> Perhaps, SIGBUS? Something, a program can catch, if it is prepared
> to, and, may be, do some syscall to find out which chunk of memory
> can not actually be used by it...

I think you're missing a point here.  (Or maybe I am, I don't know that
much about it myself).  The program that gets killed is NOT necessarily
the program that tried to access something causing a memory overcommit;
rather, the program that gets killed is the largest program around.
Often, they'll probably coincide, but by no means necessarily.

You'd also have to rely on somebody not writing a program that, inside
the SIGBUS handler, allocates and touches more memory, causing a SIGBUS,
causing more allocation, etc etc etc.  Lets try not opening any more
DoSen than there already are, 'K?


| Matthew Fuller              http://www.over-yonder.net/ |
* fulle...@futuresouth.com       fulle...@over-yonder.net *
| UNIX Systems Administrator      Specializing in FreeBSD |
*   FutureSouth Communications   ISPHelp ISP Consulting   *
|  "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends,   |
*    is because I haven't figured out how to light the    *
|                     middle yet"                         |

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to