[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
    On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Gerhard Mack wrote:
    >On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote:
    >> It is part of the issue. The system would never go OOM, users would go
    >> OOR (Out-Of-Resources). Out of resources is a manageable entity, that
    >> can be adjusted from the results of performance analysis. OOM is a
    >> catastrophic failure of the system. If the system doesn't provide a
    >> way to control it, direct which user is at fault, and as directed by
    >> management policy, then that system is considered buggy and not ready
    >> for production use.
    >> >Besides, the "random abort that may crash the system" is not the
    >> >alternative. It is a choice of WHICH process gets the OOM error first
    >> >- the "true culprit" (the memory hog), or any old process which
    >> >happens to want memory?
    >> Right now there is no way to determine which proces should get terminated.
    >Why not set resource limmits? It's just like any other resource .. if I
    >allow users unlimmited access to it I can fully expect to have someone
    >crash the system.

    I do - they just are not enforced. Each time a process forks it gets the
    same limits that the parent has. The sum of all processes then becomes >
    than the system.

    Jesse I Pollard, II

    Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

    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:0.020 / U:115.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site