Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:05:21 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sbrk(2) broken Message-ID: <9113.1199700321@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:58:53 %2B1100." <20080107095853.GR947@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20080107095853.GR947@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>, Peter Jeremy writes: >>This is a non-starter, if SIGDANGER is to have any effect, all >>processes that use malloc(3) should react to it. > >This depends on what SIGDANGER is supposed to indicate. IMO, a single >signal is inadequate - you need a "free memory is less than desirable, >please reduce memory use if possible" and one (or maybe several levels >of) "memory is really short, if you're not important, please die". That's what I have been advocating for the last 10 years... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9113.1199700321>