Jon Ribbens wrote:
>
> "Daniel C. Sobral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's *not* abomination. How about pre-allocating over 100 Mb for X
> > Free, for instance?
>
> What about it? If an application does not need 100MB, it should not
> malloc it. If it does need it, it should malloc it and know that it
> is available if the malloc succeeds.
Well, learn something about real programs first, and then come back.
> > Basically, if you don't have enough memory, you just don't have enough
> > memory.
>
> Yes, and the application should be told this via the standard
> documented interface for doing so, i.e. returning NULL from
> malloc().
This results in the applications working with less memory than would
actually be possible through overcommit.
> > What FreeBSD does *reduces* the need for memory. If FreeBSD *did
> > not* do it, then you'd need much more memory.
>
> Why? Are there really such a lot of applications allocating vastly
> more memory than they actually use?
Right.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm one of those bad things that happen to good people.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
