From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 4 06:28:11 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654DE16A417 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:28:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ianf@clue.co.za) Received: from munchkin.clue.co.za (munchkin.clue.co.za [66.219.59.160]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D964D13C459 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:28:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ianf@clue.co.za) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=20070313; d=clue.co.za; h=Received:Received:Received:To:cc:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:X-Attribution:Date:Message-Id; b=oJjEmL4BNqVo/QVHBXu+lRqdypc1AeXS89+WyshXLjrJ2vfMusF4LJnvHq5/JibPJf/ouNRnXcewtYK/v5tlrKrD65DovRt4Pxrtvwq2YsmhL52m/EiHvvIuT9LJhtqxl6tOTzuj2X3BLILHxZPh470U1bSyhNfPttZM+0+BBI4VX3AdTnDZ0CFMfyCytVOUiRbX70QA1NYPoCo/6id8O29ESqUamdoJZxJ4toLTC2MfIarQb+zlv4i9h08d0dz/; Received: from uucp by munchkin.clue.co.za with local-rmail (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JAg2K-0008HS-L0; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:28:08 +0000 Received: from ianf.clue.co.za ([10.0.0.6] helo=clue.co.za) by urchin.clue.co.za with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1JAg1t-0006bU-RL; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:27:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=clue.co.za) by clue.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JAg1t-0000Yt-0f; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:27:41 +0200 To: Robert Watson From: Ian FREISLICH In-Reply-To: Message from Robert Watson of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:26:31 GMT." <20080104002002.L30578@fledge.watson.org> X-Attribution: BOFH Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:27:41 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Jason Evans , Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: sbrk(2) broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:28:11 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > to break (tm), killing of other large processes, etc. To be clear, > in the new world order, instead of getting NULL back from malloc(3), > SIGKILL is delivered to large processes. I'm not sure that I like that very much. At least the way that it has been explained here so correct me if I misunderstood. 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. Ian -- Ian Freislich