[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: OOM killer???
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote:

> The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out
> when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow
> the plane to become overloaded.

Yes. But today Linux willing overcommits. It would be better if
the default was not to.

> Furthermore, why do you suppose an aeroplane has more than one altimeter,
> artifical horizon and compass? Do you think it's because they are unable to
> make one of each that is reliable? Or do you think its because they are
> concerned about what happens if one fails _however unlikely that is_.

Unix V6 did not overcommit, and panicked if is was out of swap
because that was a cannot happen situation.
If you argue that we must design things so that there is no overcommit
and still have an OOM killer just in case, I have no objections at all.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.151 / U:1.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site