Messages in this thread | | | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: Overcomittable memory | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:47:15 +0000 |
| |
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:45:35 -0600, you wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 17, 2000 at 10:10:23AM +0000, James Sutherland wrote: >> Yes, you COULD have COW without overcommitting - but you still lose one of >> the major benefits of COW, namely huge savings on VM usage. If I fork() >> 100 Apache processes of 20Mb each, I need perhaps 30Mb of VM total. >> WITHOUT overcommitted COW, I end up needing 2Gb of swap space - 1.98Gb of >> which I will never use! This is certainly not an efficient use of swap >> space, IMO... > >This is why god gave us segments. Can share the code; just have room for >the data. > >Actually, I suppose it would be possible to know how much is code not >likely to change (runtime loadable modules), and not have to commit for >that.
Or just commit based on the memory which is really being used by the process, which is nice and simple, and hasn't caused any problems I know of yet.
It works - why change it?
James.
- 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/
| |