Subject: Re: NetBSD1.6 UVM problem?
To: Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com>
From: Wojciech Puchar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/09/2002 09:14:40
On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Mike Cheponis wrote:
> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 23:05:09 -0800 (PST)
> From: Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com>
> To: NetBSD Kernel Technical Discussion List <email@example.com>
> Cc: Chuck Silvers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: NetBSD1.6 UVM problem?
> > [ On Sunday, December 8, 2002 at 11:02:54 (-0800), Chuck Silvers wrote: ]
> > > yes, the heuristic for determining when to start killing processes
> > > when no swap is available doesn't work so well when there's no swap
> > > configured.
> I've never understood why a process that is behaving could randomly get
> Doesn't it make more sense to simply return ENOMEM to the process requesting
> memory, and let -it- deal with the problem? The OS needs to keep reserved
> enough stack, etc, to make sure it remains consistent.
with lazy memory allocation it's not possible to return an error.