From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon,  3 Sep 2007 01:28:28 -0400
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 01:28:28 -0400
From: Scott Schwartz <schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
Message-ID: <20070903052828.GA24296@bio.cse.psu.edu>
References: <20070902212734.DF2D31E8C26@holo.morphisms.net>
	<20070903012332.20256.qmail@g.galapagos.bx.psu.edu>
	<13426df10709021847o1df19364j2d22a87d425c6505@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <13426df10709021847o1df19364j2d22a87d425c6505@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b4e5457c-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:47:17PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> If you can't live with overcommit, maybe you need a wrapper that:
> sets up to catch the note (I am assuming here that you get one; do you?)

That's still a race.  Getting all the memory at once is different from
probing for one page at a time and dealing with failures in the middle.