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!library.ucla.edu!agate!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!giant!a09878 From: a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Notes on the *new* FreeBSD V1.1 VM system Date: 1 Mar 94 19:30:21 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! Communications Corp. Lines: 17 Message-ID: <a09878.762550221@giant> References: <CLutBp.4K9@flatlin.ka.sub.org> <RA0Jn4G.dysonj@delphi.com> <2kudpoINNbhd@CS.UTK.EDU> <1994Mar1.132637.58107@ans.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: giant.rsoft.bc.ca dennis@ans.net (Dennis Ferguson) writes: >I don't think it is quite so easy, or clear. Pages are explicitly >allocated by sbrk(), but are also implicitly and tentatively allocated >by fork(). If a 60 Mb process wants to fork() so it can execve() a small >shell command, do you really want to have to configure an extra 60 Mb >or more of swap space to allow this, or make the fork() fail if the >backing store for the entire extra 60 Mb isn't available? But isn't this what the vfork() system call is for? cjs -- Curt Sampson a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca Fluor Daniel 604 691 5458 1444 Alberni Street Vanouver, B.C., V6G 2Z4 "Small cows work best." --Ty Bower