Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news From: bs@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Notes on the *new* FreeBSD V1.1 VM system Date: 3 Mar 1994 13:14:38 +0100 Organization: EUnet Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany Lines: 16 Distribution: world Message-ID: <2l4kbe$oru@Germany.EU.net> References: <CLutBp.4K9@flatlin.ka.sub.org> <2kudpoINNbhd@CS.UTK.EDU> <1994Mar1.132637.58107@ans.net> <a09878.762550221@giant> <2l0b06$2qi@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> <a09878.762635894@giant> NNTP-Posting-Host: qwerty.germany.eu.net In article <a09878.762635894@giant>, a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: |> Allocate a few pages for the stack and mark the last page so that |> when it's written to you get a fault. When that page faults, attempt |> to expand the stack. If there's not enough swap to back up the memory |> you're trying to allocate you've run out of memory, and you can't |> expand it, so you allocate no more stack and either inform or |> terminate the process when it tries to expand the stack beyond the |> last page. Give the process a signal which makes it call the signal handler which in turn runs on an extra signal stack ? Somehow, I don't think this is a good idea. Bernard