Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: Out Of Memory in v. 2.1 | Date | 4 Oct 1998 19:44:25 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.199810050034.UAA06061@hilfy.ece.cmu.edu>, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> wrote: >In message <6v8rfc$8jt@pell.pell.portland.or.us>, david parsons writes: >+----- >| That's one thing I've always wondered about. Why not have the system >| keep track of total memory instead of wanting to mirror memory onto >| swap? It seems to me that if you have 512mb of core and 128mb of >| swap that you've got 640mb of memory and you should be able to do >| allocations against that, since either a page will be in core or >| on the swap device. >+--->8 > >And if you could treat swap identically with main memory (i.e. access data >directly in swap), that would make sense. Problem is, swap has to be loaded >into main memory to be accessed... so now you need to reserve blocks of main >memory so you have places for swap pages to go.
Yes, but you certainly don't need to reserve the entirety of core to do it. Keep aside 126k as a transfer area (if you even need that much) and you've still got the rest to use. Sure, performance will start to suck dead bunnies through a straw as you approach having only 128k free, but when you run out of memory it sucks anyway.
____ david parsons \bi/ not overwhelmingly convinced that overcommit \/ is always the best choice.
- 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/
| |