On Wed, Apr 14, 1999 at 01:12:00PM -0400, a little birdie told me that Mikhail Teterin remarked > > Aha, now its clearer. May be, since we are do not conform anyway, > we can design some clever way of notifying a program rather then > SIGKILL-ing it? > > Perhaps, SIGBUS? Something, a program can catch, if it is prepared > to, and, may be, do some syscall to find out which chunk of memory > can not actually be used by it...
I think you're missing a point here. (Or maybe I am, I don't know that much about it myself). The program that gets killed is NOT necessarily the program that tried to access something causing a memory overcommit; rather, the program that gets killed is the largest program around. Often, they'll probably coincide, but by no means necessarily. You'd also have to rely on somebody not writing a program that, inside the SIGBUS handler, allocates and touches more memory, causing a SIGBUS, causing more allocation, etc etc etc. Lets try not opening any more DoSen than there already are, 'K? --- *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Matthew Fuller http://www.over-yonder.net/ | * fulle...@futuresouth.com fulle...@over-yonder.net * | UNIX Systems Administrator Specializing in FreeBSD | * FutureSouth Communications ISPHelp ISP Consulting * | "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, | * is because I haven't figured out how to light the * | middle yet" | *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
