lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?
Date
In article <linux.kernel.200003270740.AAA00882@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>,
Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>Linda Walsh writes:
>> Richard Gooch wrote:
>> > Each of these options is flawed:
>> >
>> > 1&2) you have to do this for all processes
>
>[bugger, you've removed the context]
>
>> You have to assign process ID's, memory mappings, etc to every
>> process. So what's your point? Having a default guaranteed stack
>
>No, *I* don't have to allocate PIDs. The kernel does that for me.
>
>To avoid overcommit, I have to limit the stacksize for all
>processes.

No you don't; just follow the same logic that exists for a stack
overrunning the stack limit: out of limit ::= program fall down go
boom. For an assurance that the program won't go down and fall boom
for that reason, you can go out of your way to preallocate.

____
david parsons \bi/ The only place where overcommit is really really useful
\/ is the emacs editing a 100mb file case, and maybe vfork
+ page ownership would be a better solution there.

-
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:0.138 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site