lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...?
Marco Colombo wrote:
> > Does the kernel actually allocate all of these and just "not use
> > them" -- i.e. are these really cases of where space is allocated and then goes
> > unused? I'd think all of these are cases where the kernel was expecting to
>
> Yes. Everytime you malloc() something, use it, and no one else reclaims
> that RAM. Swap space is not used. Why allocate it at malloc() time?
> Just allocate it when neeed.
---
"malloc"? You were talking kmalloc and the kernel reserving space
for its *internal* data structures. Does the kernel mark address space
withing itself (kernel space) as 'available' but not actually claim a
physical page to map it to? I really really hope not.


> > But we already do bookkeeping for 'free'
> > memory, 'used' memory, 'shared' memory -- would adding 'committed' or 'reserved'
> > memory really be that much more difficult or costly?
>
> 'reserved' memory? You mean mlock()ed one? Of course it does bookkeeping
> of it.
---
Reserved meaning removed from the 'free' pool -- that there is
a guaranteed space in the physical mem/swap pool (whther or not the mapping
has actually taken place).

-l

--
Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI
law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338

-
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:0.216 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site