Re: memory overcommitment
Kurt Garloff (garloff@kg1.ping.de)
Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:49:59 +0200
On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 03:56:16PM -0400, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
> I am probably a little late for this debate, but isn't this a little too
> complex ? I mean if you don't need memory why call malloc and if you need
> it you are going to use it anyway. What about situations you don't know
> how much really you need it ? like getting data out from the network ?
>
> I would venture that the right suggestion was proposed before:
> kill offending processes on sight with _liberal_ restrictions.
>
> Of course *how* to kill them is another matter. It would be good to have two
> more signals: SIG_SUSPEND and SIG_RESUME. When the process gets SIG_SUSPEND
> it is never given time by the kernel and can be safely swapped out to say
> a low perfomance temporary swap in /tmp. Root then gets a notification about
> this process and has an option to send a SIG_RESUME signal to let the process
> continue anyways.
You can use SIGSTOP(19) and SIGCONT(18) which already exist and work.
No need to create new signals.
> ...
--
Kurt Garloff, Dortmund
<K.Garloff@ping.de>
PGP key on http://student.physik.uni-dortmund.de/homepages/garloff
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html