New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2160
I have made such a case as I can.
That it does not persuade you means little; nothing can ever persuade you.
Perhaps some kind bystander will help?
There are very few.
There are very few of these, even if you use an expansive definition of 'virus'.
What I have stated are simply facts. You cannot wish them away.
snip
Yes.
Very likely; in an interactive system you'd get tired of thrashing long before reaching the hard limit.
Daniel Johnson From what little you know, and have googled no doubt to find out what you could know, yes it was the best you could have done. Not from your position of...
It is not likely to be able to log *anything* until it frees some swap up. But after blowing up some programs, it will certainly try to log the problem.
fork() is supposed to make a copy of the process that executes it, including all data. Actually doing this would burn gargantuan amounts of memory and is Not Done.
Instead, fork() makes a sort of 'virtual copy'; the new process shares the memory of the old, but the VM is configured so that whenever any memory is changed by either process, it mades a private copy of *that* page, on demand.
Making a private copy means allocating a page of storage for it, and when swap is exhausted, this allocation should fail.
But it cannot fail. It is now too late; fork() has returned success *already*, to both processes, and it cannot now return failure. You'd need a time machine.
compatibles) do in this situation is to kill processes. This frees memory so that the surviving programs can continue.
snip
You did not quote any book, as far as I can see.
snip
Thank you, Thank you!