Michael Graff <explorer@flame.org> writes:
   > Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@netbsd.org> writes:
   > 
   > > The sleep thing is smart & simple solution to tough problem. I don't
   > > see how it could cause any new problem. So I currently don't see why
   > > to not have it there.
   > 
   > It also only occurs in the case where a process is trying to exceed
   > its limit.
   
   You mean like, perhaps, a system already on the edge of collapse where
   the delays will make the collapse worse, as has already been explained
   by others?


so, if fork() is failing how is the system actually going to get the
work done it needs to get done anyway?  that's the bit i don't get.


i think i like the sleep but i think 0.5s is way excessive... i think
we need people to run this on real machines and see what real effect
it does have.


.mrg.