Den 06-Mar-00 16:29:18 skrev Rik van Riel fĝlgende om "Re: Linux 2.2.15pre12":
> Think about running a big simulation process that fork()s to
> exec() /bin/mail in order to email its status or a partial
> solution to the person that started the simulation.
> A big rendering process that fork()/exec()s lpr.
> Without overcommit you'd need to have the 500 MB of swap free
> that the big simulation is using, even though it'll only use
> 1 MB for the little process that's being exec()ed...
This doesn't mean that overcommit is a good idea. It just means that
fork()/exec() is not a good way of launching programs. Using overcommit to
cover up for fork()/exec() deficiencies is like redirecting compiler
warnings to /dev/null instead of fixing the code. The symptoms become less
visible but the problem remains. The problem could be solved by introducing
a new system call with the ability to start an external program as a new
process.
Regards,
/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻTŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ\
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.dtu.dk |
| Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ |
| mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC |
| Hard work may not kill me, but why take chances? |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:23 EST