Messages in this thread | | | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:28:22 +0000 |
| |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 21:09:35 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Paul Jakma wrote: >>On 18 Mar 2000, Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote: >> >> Overcommitting memory is the moral equivalent of writing bad checks and >> praying there will be money to cover them before they are cashed. It's >> completely irresponsible-- and when it fails, it really bites down hard. >> >>bzzzttt... bad analogy. :) >> >>overcommit is more like writing out many cheques where you know from >>experience that typically only a small percentage are ever cashed. >> >>would you keep $1,000,000 of cash in reserve when you know that most >>likely you could cover your debts with only $100? > >You do if it means that you will die if someone calls your bluff.
That doesn't apply here. You carry what you expect to need, plus some spare; then, if you really have problems, you go and get a refund on something non-critical. Killing one user process is not a life-or-death situation - and it's not worth preventing the user process ever starting, just to avoid the slight risk of it dying later.
James.
- 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/
| |