Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:18:39 -0800 | From | Linda Walsh <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |