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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site