lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
From
Date
Jesse Pollard writes:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Olaf Weber wrote:

> One thing I thought of that would help reduce the effect of
> fork/exec sequence on the reservation - If the fork only reserved
> say 5-10 pages - then if the new process exceeded this reserve then
> entire amount should be reserved. This would reduce the peak
> reservation in the case of a fork followed by an exec. This delayed
> reservation should give nearly the same peak as the current method,
> and protect against the worst case.

It seems an interesting hack^H^H^H^Htechnique. The parent process
should of course be aware that a fork can almost immediately be
followed by the child dying thanks to OOM. Then again, that's true
now too, so if the parent cannot cope, it is buggy today.

--
Olaf Weber

Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
for they are quick to anger and have no need for subtlety.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.171 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site