lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Alan Cox wrote:

>> The explanation is not the issue. The issue is having programs that
>> act correctly (check malloc() returns, don't follow null pointers,
>> etc.) fail in ways that are quite difficult for their programmers
>> to prevent.
>
>Indeed. And its completely valid to kill them off. Right now nobody has
>a serious commercial requirement for non-overcommit on Linux.

Alan, does it make sense, in ANY situation, to disable overcommit? Because
AFAIK, a system without overcommit would always have to kill processes
before an equivalent overcommitting system would.

It seems to me that this whole overcommit debate is just avoiding the real
problem, which is how to decide which tasks to kill.

Dave

David Whysong dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu
Astrophysics graduate student University of California, Santa Barbara
My public PGP keys are on my web page - http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~dwhysong
DSS PGP Key 0x903F5BD6 : FE78 91FE 4508 106F 7C88 1706 B792 6995 903F 5BD6
D-H PGP key 0x5DAB0F91 : BC33 0F36 FCCD E72C 441F 663A 72ED 7FB7 5DAB 0F91



-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site