Re: Memory management in Kernel 2.4.x

From: William Lee Irwin III (wli@holomorphy.com)
Date: Mon May 27 2002 - 16:56:32 EST


On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:22:22PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Well, if you can't fork a new process because that would push you into
>>> overcommit, then you usually can't actually do anything useful on the
>>> machine.

On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 22:33, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>> Just use vfork or clone + exec. It's faster and uses less memory.

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:50:31PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> In the general case a fork doesn't cause too much overcommit. Most of
> the binary is mapped read-only as is a lot of the library space. Since
> its read only and backed by a file it has zero cost. If you mprotect it
> then you pay at mprotect time

If you're willing to take a feature request, I'd be much obliged if the
pagetable memory were also accounted.

Thanks,
Bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 31 2002 - 22:00:21 EST