Jesse Pollard writes:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Olaf Weber wrote:
> One thing I thought of that would help reduce the effect of
> fork/exec sequence on the reservation - If the fork only reserved
> say 5-10 pages - then if the new process exceeded this reserve then
> entire amount should be reserved. This would reduce the peak
> reservation in the case of a fork followed by an exec. This delayed
> reservation should give nearly the same peak as the current method,
> and protect against the worst case.
It seems an interesting hack^H^H^H^Htechnique. The parent process
should of course be aware that a fork can almost immediately be
followed by the child dying thanks to OOM. Then again, that's true
now too, so if the parent cannot cope, it is buggy today.
-- Olaf WeberDo not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are quick to anger and have no need for subtlety.
- 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 - 21:00:26 EST