>: >:Well, all I can say is: >: >: I'm sure glad you don't have any influence over the code >: base I run. >: >: -- Jason R. Thorpe <thor...@nas.nasa.gov> > > I'm sure the feeling is mutual. More to the point, I really seriously > doubt that any of the core developers would consider this idea either > because it's been rejected in the past and, so far, nobody has offered > anything that hasn't been heard before. You are welcome to ask them, > of course, but that is the feeling I get. There are much easier ways > to accomplish the level of control required.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to a no-overcommit knob, but I think implementing it properly is more difficult than people think. There are things that do implied swap allocation (automatic stack allocation and fork() are two examples) that make this a difficult problem to solve. I wouldn't personally want to run a system with such a knob turned on, however, and I tend to agree with Matt that there are other better ways to solve the embedded system case. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
