Messages in this thread | | | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? | Date | Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:30:04 +0100 |
| |
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:50:37 +0200 (MET DST), you wrote: >"A month of sundays ago Marco Colombo wrote:" >> > * Ok, demand-loading was easy, shared pages a little bit tricker. Shared >> > * pages started 02.12.91, seems to work. - Linus. >> > * >> > * Tested sharing by executing about 30 /bin/sh: under the old kernel it >> > * would have taken more than the 6M I have free, but it worked well as >> > * far as I could see. >> > * >> > * Also corrected some "invalidate()"s - I wasn't doing enough of them. >> > */ >> >> I don't think the above comment is about overcommitting swap space. >> He's talking about sharing the text segments of processes, i think. >> But you should ask Linus, I was not there at the moment (01.12.91) B-). > >And I arrived later too. But while we're on the subject of swap space, >doesn't "reserve me 8MB of disk-based swap as backing for my stack" cure >everyones OOM blues? I propose that that's a fair use for swap nowadays. >I don't _actually_ want to use swap myself, and having it there only >as the "gold-standard" at the back of the IOU seems the best use.
On the contrary - reserving an extra 8Mb of swap per process would CAUSE further OOM problems. You would still run OOM, it would just happen sooner than it otherwise would.
>That only leaves malloc and fork overhead as candidates for unexpected >segfaults. Malloc can be cured by the programmer touching the memory >when he gets it. Fork overhead is dealt with by having a reserve for >the kernel.
What's the point? What, precisely, do you gain by this?
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/
| |