Messages in this thread | | | From | david parsons <> | Subject | Re: Overcommitable memory?? | Date | Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:59:39 -0800 (PST) |
| |
David Whysong wrote: > > On 13 Mar 2000, david parsons wrote: > >David Whysong <dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu> wrote: > >> > >>Ok, so my big gravitational simulation gets NULL from malloc and decides > >>to save it's work and exit. Uh-oh, time to demand-load a page of > >>executable code that had been discarded, > > > > Discarded? But that would be overcommit -- if your system is running > > without overcommit, there has to be a space for that page someplace > > in core, and it shouldn't be blown away, no matter how frantically > > the kernel may want to use that page for something else. > > ...yes, and you conveniently cut my next paragraph that shows the problems > in the case where you do not overcommit application memory...
Those problems are already well known; why repeat them?
____ david parsons \bi/ I like overcommit, but I'm beginning to think it leads \/ to sloppy programming.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |