Re: sbrk(2) broken

"Igor Mozolevsky" <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk> writes:
> This makes memory management in the userland hideously and
> unnecessarily complicated. It's simpler to have SIGDANGER [...]

You don't seem to understand what Poul-Henning was trying to point out,
which is that broadcasting SIGDANGER can make a bad situation much, much
worse by waking up and paging in every single process in the system,
including processes that are blocked and wouldn't otherwise run for
several minutes, hours or even days (getty, inetd, sshd, mountd, even
nfsd / nfsiod in some cases can sleep for days at a time waiting for
I/O)

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des_at_des.no