sbrk(2) broken
Andrew Reilly
andrew-freebsd at areilly.bpc-users.org
Mon Jan 7 15:20:25 PST 2008
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:18:47 +0000
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk at phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> Yes, but you will not see this complication, it will be hidden
> in the implementation of malloc(3).
How could you hide it inside malloc? Would malloc start
returning 0 after receiving the "less mem than desirable"
signal? Would it ever go back to returning non-zero?
I thought that the idea of things like SIGDANGER was that
applications would be written to have a mode where they could
shut down some aspect of their operation, and free resources. I
don't see how you can do that, autonomously, from within malloc?
Maybe introduce a special flavour of pointer value, returned by a
special version of malloc for "cache" objects, that the system is
allowed to automatically reclaim? Then programs would need to be
able to handle SIGSEGV when accessing those...
Cheers,
--
Andrew
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list