>:
>:Well, all I can say is:
>:
>: I'm sure glad you don't have any influence over the code
>: base I run.
>:
>: -- Jason R. Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm sure the feeling is mutual. More to the point, I really seriously
> doubt that any of the core developers would consider this idea either
> because it's been rejected in the past and, so far, nobody has offered
> anything that hasn't been heard before. You are welcome to ask them,
> of course, but that is the feeling I get. There are much easier ways
> to accomplish the level of control required.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to a no-overcommit knob, but I think
implementing it properly is more difficult than people think. There are things
that do implied swap allocation (automatic stack allocation and fork() are
two examples) that make this a difficult problem to solve.
I wouldn't personally want to run a system with such a knob turned on,
however, and I tend to agree with Matt that there are other better ways to
solve the embedded system case.
-DG
David Greenman
Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org
Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
