Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:02:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) | From | Paul Jakma <> | Subject | Re: Overcommitable memory?? |
| |
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Horst von Brand wrote:
> They are a way of killing processes without declaring OOM (OOM effect > without OOM :). If they are set up to not overcommit, ever. Rarely done, as > it is a huge waste. Start over. >
if the app is bad then the app is bad. At least with per-user limits you can set things up so that bad/untrustworthy apps only affect themselves.
ie, it's no longer a kernel problem.
> Very much agree. It would be nice if we were given the alternative, > which we aren't right now. First question is, who is going to use > this?
a lot of people. me for one. I already make heavy use of process limits.
> How extensively? For what kinds of uses? Next question is, how > much does this cost, when it is used and when it isn't? How much > developer/maintainer/ tester manpower it consumes has to be counted > in here. Both in the kernel configuration case "Overcommit memory > (Y|n)",
are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking per-user limits, something which we might eventually see in linux.
You seem to be talking about having a non-overcommitting vm. (something which i think we'll never see in linux - but lets not argue about that).
-paul jakma.
- 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/
| |