Re: On the issue of low memory situations

From: Linda Walsh (
Date: Sat Mar 18 2000 - 02:09:33 EST

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.


-- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI | Voice: (650) 933-5338

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST