lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?
Date
"A month of sundays ago Marco Colombo wrote:"
> > * Ok, demand-loading was easy, shared pages a little bit tricker. Shared
> > * pages started 02.12.91, seems to work. - Linus.
> > *
> > * Tested sharing by executing about 30 /bin/sh: under the old kernel it
> > * would have taken more than the 6M I have free, but it worked well as
> > * far as I could see.
> > *
> > * Also corrected some "invalidate()"s - I wasn't doing enough of them.
> > */
>
> I don't think the above comment is about overcommitting swap space.
> He's talking about sharing the text segments of processes, i think.
> But you should ask Linus, I was not there at the moment (01.12.91) B-).

And I arrived later too. But while we're on the subject of swap space,
doesn't "reserve me 8MB of disk-based swap as backing for my stack" cure
everyones OOM blues? I propose that that's a fair use for swap nowadays.
I don't _actually_ want to use swap myself, and having it there only
as the "gold-standard" at the back of the IOU seems the best use.

That only leaves malloc and fork overhead as candidates for unexpected
segfaults. Malloc can be cured by the programmer touching the memory
when he gets it. Fork overhead is dealt with by having a reserve for
the kernel.

Peter

-
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:0.239 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site