Mikhail Teterin <m...@kot.ne.mediaone.net> wrote: >That's my point! I advocate the use of some _other_ signal. Something >catchable.
As soon as you allow a catchable signal, you create a potential deadlock situation. See my previous mail. >In case of "resource shortage" the malloc should be unsuccessful >and return NULL. This requires a change to the kernel to disable swap over-commit. malloc is behaving correctly: it calls brk/sbrk to request additional memory. The kernel verifies that the process hasn't exceeded its resource limits and the brk returns success. > Instead, right now you may still get a non-NULL >pointer, but get a SIGKILL when you try to use the rightfully >allocated memory. Actually the biggest process gets SIGKILL. This probably isn't the process that requested the memory. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
