lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Overcomittable memory
    On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote:

    > The only circumstance under which this change would have any effect is
    > where the kernel's "promise" is put to the test. With the current
    > behaviour, the promise COULD be broken. With your suggestion implemented,
    > it GUARANTEES that the problem occurs.

    No, it allows the promise to be a firm one.

    > So other than turning the remote possibility of a problem into a
    > guaranteed problem, the change achieves nothing. I don't think it'll make
    > it into the tree, then :-)

    No, it makes sure that programs needing to know that the memory they have
    really is available will work. Most embedded systems are written with this
    in mind. I would imagine many special-purpose computers could use this as
    well (routers etc).

    Peter
    --
    Peter Svensson ! Pgp key available by finger, fingerprint:
    <petersv@psv.nu> ! 8A E9 20 98 C1 FF 43 E3 07 FD B9 0A 80 72 70 AF
    <petersv@df.lth.se> !
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Remember, Luke, your source will be with you... always...



    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:4.414 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site