On Llu, 2005-08-08 at 00:22 -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> I don't think you can forcibly reclaim MAP_NORESERVE objects (I'm
> assuming you mean completely throwing away dirty pages).
In which case there is no real difference between MAP_NORESERVE and not
setting it when doing zero overcommit as w
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 12:49 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2005-08-06 at 20:52 -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> > Why does overcommit in mode 2 (OVERCOMMIT_NEVER) explicitly force
> > MAP_NORESERVE mappings to reserve memory?
> >
> > My understanding is that MAP_NORESERVE is a way for apps to stat
On Sad, 2005-08-06 at 20:52 -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote:
> Why does overcommit in mode 2 (OVERCOMMIT_NEVER) explicitly force
> MAP_NORESERVE mappings to reserve memory?
>
> My understanding is that MAP_NORESERVE is a way for apps to state that
> they are aware that the memory allocated may not exi
Why does overcommit in mode 2 (OVERCOMMIT_NEVER) explicitly force
MAP_NORESERVE mappings to reserve memory?
My understanding is that MAP_NORESERVE is a way for apps to state that
they are aware that the memory allocated may not exist and that they
might get a SIGSEGV and that's OK with them.
Fail
4 matches
Mail list logo
