lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
Date
On 21 Mar 2000 11:32:25 +0100, David Whysong <dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>[cc list trimmed]
>
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote about OOM handling:
>
>>Yes; the current handling is about as good as it can get without
>>per-user resource management, which is a long way off.
>
>Uh, come again? The current handling is to kill processes at random. I
>wouldn't call that "as good as it can get...."

Well, the whole thread started about that patch floating around that does it
better than current "killing randomly" policy in kernel. Why it turned into
non-overcommit is better than overcommit is still unknown. :-)

--
Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.

-
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:0.146 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site