From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <bf14a1afa9d2da2c6b1540a16c52d970@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  7 Sep 2007 06:55:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <775b8d190709062109o1c0a64b8y55ceb79e95083ecb@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: bae972a4-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> this thread is now twice as big as the swap and proc code.
> is it really that much fun to do research this way?
> yes, it has been done.  no, my current work has nothing
> to do with this issue.
>
> someone written a line of relevant code during this "discussion"?

would you care to give references to this being done
in plan 9 or similar operating system?

i would hope the discussion is much bigger than the
resulting code.  this discussion has boiled down the
issues for me.  this is what i remember

plan 9 overcommits memory three ways
1. when a process forks, the cow pages are counted once.
2. plan 9 hands out brk'ed pages it doesn't have.
3. the stack is potentially very large (16mb), grown
implictly and not reserved.

by the way, what are the scare quote quotes for?
participants might take that in the wrong way.

- erik