Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:40:13 -0800 (PST) | From | David Whysong <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? |
| |
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> The explanation is not the issue. The issue is having programs that >> act correctly (check malloc() returns, don't follow null pointers, >> etc.) fail in ways that are quite difficult for their programmers >> to prevent. > >Indeed. And its completely valid to kill them off. Right now nobody has >a serious commercial requirement for non-overcommit on Linux.
Alan, does it make sense, in ANY situation, to disable overcommit? Because AFAIK, a system without overcommit would always have to kill processes before an equivalent overcommitting system would.
It seems to me that this whole overcommit debate is just avoiding the real problem, which is how to decide which tasks to kill.
Dave
David Whysong dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu Astrophysics graduate student University of California, Santa Barbara My public PGP keys are on my web page - http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~dwhysong DSS PGP Key 0x903F5BD6 : FE78 91FE 4508 106F 7C88 1706 B792 6995 903F 5BD6 D-H PGP key 0x5DAB0F91 : BC33 0F36 FCCD E72C 441F 663A 72ED 7FB7 5DAB 0F91
- 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/
| |