Messages in this thread | | | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? | Date | Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:53:50 +0000 |
| |
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:33:12 -0600 (CST), you wrote: >James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> (snip) >> Yours, if you don't have enough resources available to you to run it. >> Otherwise, both run fine. > >BUT "when I use up the resources given to me" - If the resources weren't >available, why did the system give them to me?
It didn't.
>> >Who gets killed - your process or mine? >> Yours, because there aren't enough resources to run it. > >The system told me there were enough resources.
You asked it if there was 128Mb of VM free; there was. Half an hour later, you try to use 128Mb of VM and fail. There is a rather simpler explanation than the nasty kernel having lied to you...
>> >Which is the correct one? >> Yours, as above. >As determined by what?
System policy.
>> >How do you know it is the correct one? >> Because it would put you above the limit available to you. > >But the system told me the resources were available. And what limit? >The kernel doesn't support resource quotas.
I'm pretending for the moment it does; if we can pretend it doesn't have overcommit, we can pretend it does have per-user rlimits, too. We have already agreed that it SHOULD have this feature, and eventually, it will. If you want it so badly, pay for it.
>> >If it happens again, are the answers the same? >> Yes. > >BUGGGY. The system gave the resource to me. See above. What distinguishes >my job from yours?
I loaded a program when there WERE enough resources to support it. You loaded the same program when there were not. I got the resources I was allowed, you got the resources available to you.
James.
- 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/
| |