Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter T. Breuer" <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? | Date | Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:50:37 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
"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/
| |