[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
Den 13-Mar-00 22:26:50 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Overcommitable memory??":
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:

>> The way I see it, apps that have successfully allocated memory in the past
>> wouldn't start dying since there's no malloc() to fail, wheras new apps
>> that want to bring down the system will start getting failed
>> malloc()/mmap()'s

> Except many apps DO allocate memory during run time for buffers, workspace
> etc. That's why, at present, lots of processes start dropping dead once
> malloc() starts failing.

For at large number of programs, this probably _is_ the right thing to

>> There's no reason to tell an application that it has X megs of memory all
>> to itself to play with, and then KILL one of it's brothers if the kernel
>> finds itself short.

> We don't "tell" any application we have X Mb of RAM.

Actually, we do. If malloc (262144) returns non-zero, then we've told
the application that we have 256 kB of memory, implemented as RAM or swap
in any combination the kernel sees fit, as long as there is 256 kB in total.


| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: |
| Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: |
| mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC |
| Copywight 1996 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved. |

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.213 / U:9.484 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site