lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: OOM killer???
    avid Lang <dlang@diginsite.com>:
    >one of the key places where the memory is 'allocated' but not used is in
    >the copy on write conditions (fork, clone, etc) most of the time very
    >little of the 'duplicate' memory is ever changed (in fact most of the time
    >the program that forks then executes some other program) on a lot of
    >production boxes this would be a _very_ significant additional overhead in
    >memory (think a busy apache server, it forks a bunch of processes, but
    >currently most of that memory is COW and never actually needs to be
    >duplicated)

    So? If the requirement is no-overcommit, then assume it WILL be overwritten.
    Allocate sufficient swap for the requirement.

    Now, it shouldn't be necessary to include the text segment - after all
    this should be marked RX.

    Actually just X would do, but on Intel systems that also means R. and if W
    is set it also means RWX. I hope that Intel gets a better clue about memory
    protection sometime soon.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jesse I Pollard, II
    Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

    Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.022 / U:0.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site