Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!mephisto!rutgers!cbmvax!ag
From: ag@cbmvax.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Is System V.4 fork reliable?
Message-ID: <13545@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 31 Jul 90 17:26:52 GMT
References: <561@oglvee.UUCP> <480@amanue.UUCP> <13426@cbmvax.commodore.com> <573@oglvee.UUCP> <ZOY4ZO4@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: ag@cbmvax (Keith Gabryelski)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga Unix; West Chester, PA
Lines: 14

In article <ZOY4ZO4@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da
Silva) writes:
>In article <573@oglvee.UUCP> jr@oglvee.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:
>>The larger question is *why can't the kernel sleep* when it needs
>>more memory for a fork???
>
>Even if it can't do it right then, it could check right before leaving
>kernel mode. Or if that's politically incorrect, change fork.o in libc.a
>to implement the check for EAGAIN and do an exponential backoff (or
>whatever).

Or fix the application program.

Pax, Keith