d...@flood.ping.uio.no (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) writes: > "Kelly Yancey" <kby...@alcnet.com> writes: > > Ahh...but wouldn't the bzero() touch all of the memory just allocated > > functionally making it non-overcommit? > > No. If it were an "non-overcomitting malloc", it would return NULL and > set errno to ENOMEM, instead of dumping core.
It won't dump core. If it isn't the biggest process, it'll simply succeed, but somebody else is killed. If it's the biggest process, it'll die with SIGKILL without dumping core. There *are* systems that kill "random" processes when swap runs out, presumably when they need to actually get pages that aren't available. FreeBSD is not one of them. Overcommit still has nothing to do with malloc. Either the *system* is overcommitted or it isn't - per-process overcommitment is irrelevant, as is the way memory has become overcommitted. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
