Messages in this thread | | | Date | 21 Mar 2000 20:33:16 +0100 | From | "Rask Ingemann Lambertsen" <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? |
| |
Den 19-Mar-00 22:25:46 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?": > On 18 Mar 2000 01:11:59 -0500, you wrote:
>>I agree with you Michael. This would make it possible to write >>applications which are robust about memory allocation, since they will >>know at malloc time whether they have the memory they requested and can do >>intelligent things (e.g., purge buffers, alert the user, wait, etc.) >>beyond merely catching SIGTERM and exiting gracefully.
> You get this behaviour anyway if you just touch the memory when you > allocate it - perhaps using a wrapper or a patched C library?
You're the one with the 20 Apache processes of 40 MB each, right? Just imagine what happens when glibc starts touching all malloc()ed memory. You'll lose the swap savings you like overcommitment for. In addition, you'll lose some system performance when all those 800 MB have to be touched. Requiring programs to touch the memory they have allocated will only make things worse in every possible way. That in addition to violating standards and thus breaking backward compatibility.
Regards,
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯T¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\ | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.dtu.dk | | Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ | | mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC | | Machine-independent: Does not run on any existing machine. |
- 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/
| |