On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Peter Seebach wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >And maybe, just maybe, they'll succeed in getting their
> >idea of non-overcommit working with a patch which doesn't
> >change dozens of places in the kernel and doesn't add
> >any measurable overhead.
>
> If it adds overhead, fine, make it a kernel option. :)
>
> Anyway, no, I'm not going to contribute code right now. If I get time
> to do this at all, I'll probably do it to UVM first.
>
> My main objection was to the claim that the C standard allows
> random segfaults. It doesn't. And yes, bad hardware is a
> conformance violation. :)
I don't think a failed kernel-level allocation after overcommit
should generate a segfault.
IMHO it should send a bus error (or a sigkill if the process
doesn't exit after the SIGBUS).
Rationale:
SIGSEGV for _user_ mistakes (process accesses wrong stuff)
SIGBUS for _system_ errors (ECC error, kernel messes up, ...)
cheers,
Rik
--
Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
