* Vladimir Dozen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010930 04:41] wrote: > ehlo. > > > You're still thinking of the combined solution, just think of a > > system where all you have right now is the signals I mentioned. > > Yah, now I think I got it. Well, actually, signal(s) is all > I need. The remapping was just a bonus. To be more precise, > I need the only signal -- at low mark passed. Some other > application might be interested in second -- hi mark -- > signal, but my doesn't. > > SIGDANGER is the signal from Irix, AFAIR? > > So, how about to accept this name (just to not increase entropy > of the Universe) and send it to all processes when nswap_lowat > reached? > > The only point -- I prefer to have ability to set nswap_lowat > via sysctl since I cannot predict what amount of memory can > be consumed while freeing memory ;) (e.g., throwing exception > in C++ may eat memory due to creating exception object; logging > may eat memory also).
You want to submit a patch? If not I can take a look at it, but it's been a bit since I've looked at the vm system. > > > Just think what happens if your filesystems are full and you run > > out of swap... > > The same that happens today -- killproc() will kill me. > The situation doesn't becomes worse with remapping, it just > ... mmm... prolonges. > > -- > dozen @ home -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
