In article <linux.kernel.200003270740.AAA00882@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>,
Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>Linda Walsh writes:
>> Richard Gooch wrote:
>> > Each of these options is flawed:
>> >
>> > 1&2) you have to do this for all processes
>
>[bugger, you've removed the context]
>
>> You have to assign process ID's, memory mappings, etc to every
>> process. So what's your point? Having a default guaranteed stack
>
>No, *I* don't have to allocate PIDs. The kernel does that for me.
>
>To avoid overcommit, I have to limit the stacksize for all
>processes.
No you don't; just follow the same logic that exists for a stack
overrunning the stack limit: out of limit ::= program fall down go
boom. For an assurance that the program won't go down and fall boom
for that reason, you can go out of your way to preallocate.
____
david parsons \bi/ The only place where overcommit is really really useful
\/ is the emacs editing a 100mb file case, and maybe vfork
+ page ownership would be a better solution there.
-
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 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:21 EST