Nicholas Vinen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> > I haven't read through this whole thread, so this may have been
> > suggested, but why not have a new signal "SIGNMEM". Can't be caught but
> > can be ignored. Default is to take the signal and terminate the program
> > that faulted. If ignored, put process to sleep until the memory request
> > can be satisfied. Then something like 'X' or apache could ignore, while
> > 'gcc' would just die.
>
> Well, it might even be useful to be able to catch it.
--- It's possible to define a 'catch' behavior, but it couldn't be guaranteed, since calling the signal handler would demand space on the stack which could result in another needed page. I suppose you could have the behavior defined such that the signal would be reset to default behavior (don't catch) before calling the signal handler. Then if it faulted a second time before the signal handler could re-register itself, the process dies.-l
-- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338
- 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 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST