Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:57:12 +0200 | From | Guest section DW <> | Subject | Re: OOM killer??? |
| |
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:
> The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out > when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow > the plane to become overloaded.
Yes. But today Linux willing overcommits. It would be better if the default was not to.
> Furthermore, why do you suppose an aeroplane has more than one altimeter, > artifical horizon and compass? Do you think it's because they are unable to > make one of each that is reliable? Or do you think its because they are > concerned about what happens if one fails _however unlikely that is_.
Unix V6 did not overcommit, and panicked if is was out of swap because that was a cannot happen situation. If you argue that we must design things so that there is no overcommit and still have an OOM killer just in case, I have no objections at all.
- 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/
| |