Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:10:47 +0200 (MEST) | From | Szakacsits Szabolcs <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] strict VM overcommit |
| |
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > How is assured that it's impossible to OOM when the amount of memory > > shrinks? > > IOW: > > - allocate very much memory > > - "swapoff -a" > > Make swapoff -a return -ENOMEM > > I've not done this on the basis that this is root specific stupidity and > generally shouldnt be protected against
Recommended reading: MIT's Magazin of Innovation Technology Review, August 2002 issue, cover story: Why Software Is So Bad?
Next you might read: "... prominent, leading Linux kernel developer publically labels users stupid instead of handling a special case [that is ironically used as a workaround for one of the many system software deficiencies] in what case the system software would hang using a new feature the developer is about to add and admitted to be paid for ..."
Adrian would deserve a thanks for spotting and reporting the issue [and there *are* other use cases for the above mentioned swapoff -a, some also to overcome kernel bugs].
With all respect, Alan, the critic isn't personal but reaction to a trendy phenomenon that should be address if developers care about user issues.
Szaka
- 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/
| |