kostikbel at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 04:47:29 PST 2008
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:51:32PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:27:41AM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote:
> >I have long lived processes that continuously handle very valuable
> >data and potentially get very large (several GB). I'd like that
> >process to be able to make a rational decision about what happens to its
> >memory contents when an allocation fails rather than having the
> >proverbial rug pulled out from under it. Rug pulling at any point
> >can cost an annual salary or two.
> If you google for freebsd+sigdanger, you will find that this topic
> was first discussed nearly 10 years ago. Unfortunately, no progress
> appears to have been made, though it crops up every few years.
I need to make a slight correction there:
some time ago the patch at the
works, at least I believe so. I implemented overcommit turn-off knob
and did the exact anonymous memory accounting. Quite possible, the code
rotten since then.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20080104/4d693cd0/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-current