User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Fighting fork bombs

Fighting fork bombs

Posted Apr 3, 2011 2:52 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (guest, #4458)
In reply to: Fighting fork bombs by giraffedata
Parent article: Fighting fork bombs

Keeping processes around just because some descendent is still running is a waste of resources.


(Log in to post comments)

Fighting fork bombs

Posted Apr 3, 2011 19:06 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Keeping processes around just because some descendent is still running is a waste of resources.

Seems like a pretty good return on investment for me. Maybe 50 cents worth of memory (system-wide) to be able to avoid system failures due to runaway resource usage and always be able to know where processes came from. It's about the same tradeoff as keeping a process around just because its parent hasn't yet looked at its termination status, which Unix has always done.

A process that no longer has to execute shouldn't use an appreciable amount of resource.

Fighting fork bombs

Posted Apr 7, 2011 9:24 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]

Currently when the parent exits its memory is totally freed, you're suggestion keeping the whole process until its children exits which can be expensive, maybe a middleground could be more useful ie keep only the 'identity' of the parent process and free the rest.

Fighting fork bombs

Posted Apr 7, 2011 15:16 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

you're [suggesting] keeping the whole process until its children exits which can be expensive, maybe a middleground could be more useful ie keep only the 'identity' of the parent process and free the rest.

I don't think "whole process" implies the program memory and I agree - if I were implementing this, I would have exit() free all the resources the process holds that aren't needed after the program is done running, as Linux does for zombie processes today. But like existing zombies, I would probably keep the whole task control block for simplicity.

Fighting fork bombs

Posted Apr 4, 2011 16:51 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link]

Isn't "disk/ram/cpu is cheap" typically the argument used to dismiss Unix design decisions based on efficiency?

Fighting fork bombs

Posted Apr 5, 2011 6:29 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

Isn't "disk/ram/cpu is cheap" typically the argument used to dismiss Unix design decisions based on efficiency?

This appears to be a rhetorical question, but I can't tell what the point is.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds