Re: Memory management in Kernel 2.4.x

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:22:22PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Well, if you can't fork a new process because that would push you into
>>> overcommit, then you usually can't actually do anything useful on the
>>> machine.

On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 22:33, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>> Just use vfork or clone + exec.  It's faster and uses less memory.

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 11:50:31PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> In the general case a fork doesn't cause too much overcommit. Most of
> the binary is mapped read-only as is a lot of the library space. Since
> its read only and backed by a file it has zero cost. If you mprotect it
> then you pay at mprotect time

If you're willing to take a feature request, I'd be much obliged if the
pagetable memory were also accounted.

Thanks,
Bill