Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:03:12 -0600 From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <200102242303.f1ON3E620236@guild.plethora.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "24 Feb 2001 23:14:27 %2B0100." <xzp3dd37mpo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzp3dd37mpo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >It doesn't (and I'm very close to using expletives here). On the >contrary, it tries to always satisfy the application's requests and >hopes for the best. Yes, but it could provide a stronger guarantee than it does. >It's quite possible that memory isn't available >when you call malloc(), but becomes available before you actually get >to dirty the pages that were allocated. Sure. And for many applications, that's a win. For some, though, the *CHANCE* of overcommitting killing the process is a serious problem, and the application would be better off if it could warn the user that insufficient memory is available, and perhaps more should be provided. It would be a useful option. I'm not saying it's the *only* useful option, or even always the best. However, it should be trivial enough to provide this option, and it *does* serve a useful purpose. -s 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?200102242303.f1ON3E620236>