lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.021 / U:62.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site