In message <20080104134829.GA57756_at_deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>, Kostik Belousov writes: >On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:12:50PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: >> "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, > >By making the default action for SIGDANGER to be SIG_IGN, this problem >would be mostly solved. Only processes that actually care about SIGDANGER >and installing the handler for it would require some non-trivial and >resource-hungry operation. This is a non-starter, if SIGDANGER is to have any effect, all processes that use malloc(3) should react to it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 08:08:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC