Messages in this thread | | | Date | 19 Mar 2000 2:9:9 +0100 | From | "Rask Ingemann Lambertsen" <> | Subject | Re: Overcommitable memory?? |
| |
Den 17-Mar-00 00:55:01 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Overcommitable memory??":
> Yes... So if you disabled overcommit, AND used a malloc wrapper which > touches every page when it is allocated, you could guarantee the memory > you had been "allocated" was REALLY allocated.
When you say "disabled overcommit", are you referring to the current implementation of /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory set to zero? If so, you are right, except that an OOM killer can still select your process to be the one to kill. I.e. you could have saved your trouble. Worse yet, you could cause another process to be killed because you touch the pages.
If you're talking about a working option to disable overcommitment of memory, then:
1. If you don't overcommit, there is no need to touch the pages and no gain from doing so. 2. If you do overcommit, touching the pages won't protect you from an OOM killer.
> Anyway, this all has nothing to do with the original topic, which related > to how to handle out-of-memory situations - i.e. once all the memory has > been allocated, however you allocate it.
Only one thing: If you don't overcommit memory, the kernel will never need to use an OOM killer.
Regards,
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯T¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\ | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.dtu.dk | | Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ | | mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC | | It is my tag line - I stole it first! |
- 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/
| |