Controlling the garbage collector (GC) at RT?

[Chris Gray]

On Thursday 10 February 2005 22:45, Boehm, Hans wrote:

> Strict accounting seems dubious to me for a general purpose system.  I
> think it means for example that if you fork a large process in order to
> exec
> a small helper process, you need double the amount of memory required by
> the
> large process.  (Just before the exec, I logically have two large
> processes,
> though they might really share 99.9% of their memory.)  That's
> presumably
> the reason it's not the default.

True, but with COW and normal fork semantics it should be possible to behave 
smartly in that case without succumbing to total optimism. I suspect that the 
current default behaviour may be something that made sense way back when 
Linux' virtual memory handling was really rather primitive (1.x kernels), and 
which for most users now doesn't cause enough problems to justify the risks 
incurred by changing it ...

Chris

-- 
Chris Gray                      /k/ Embedded Java Solutions
Embedded & Mobile Java, OSGi        http://www.kiffer.be/k/
chris.gray@kiffer.be                         +32 3 216 0369

Visit us at Embedded World 2005 <http://www.embedded-world.de/>
22--24 Feb. 2005 at the Nürnberg Messe (Germany), booth 10-504