Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:40:50 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@mikom.csir.co.za> To: dhw@whistle.com (David Wolfskill) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGDANGER Message-ID: <199804291840.UAA18140@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <199804291637.JAA09220@pau-amma.whistle.com> from David Wolfskill at "Apr 29, 98 09:37:06 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >the Kernel would then treat processes as follows: > >1) Processes that did not have SIGDANGER handled would be the first to be > >killed (just sent a SIGKILL). > > I'm probably exposing my ignorance here, but it seems to me that SIGKILL > really ought to be a last resort.... Since it can't be caught, it > provides absolutely no way for such a process to do any cleanup at all. > > On a related note, I'm wondering if memory allocation is the only > resource to which this sort of strategy ought to apply: I don't think > of any that are as critical, just now, but I'm not entirely convinced > that the list (of resources) should contain only a single entry.... > Mbufs are even more critical than normal memory. If any program on your machine try to send a packet and there are no free mbufs and you are at the limit for your kernel, the kernel will just panic trying to use a NULL pointer. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@mikom.csir.co.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804291840.UAA18140>