2009/4/30 Leslie P. Polzer <sky@...>:
> That's an interesting approach but I would prefer not to
> modify the application directly (nor its mode of invocation).
I don't understand your meaning. fork + waitpid, then refork is pretty
much equivalent to
-- neither requires modifying the application.
That said, I believe a wrapper process (shell script, whatever) is a
robuster way to do this: a process cannot unwedge itself, but a
wrapper can kill it if its resource consumption goes out of bounds,
> Is there a disadvantage with making the original argv list
> available? It might be useful for other purposes, too.
I can't think of a *disadvantage* as such offhand, but it seems mildly