[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: OOM killer???
Guest section DW <>:
> 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.

Preferably, the default should be a configure option, with runtime

> > 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.

Ummm... no. The user got "ENOMEM" or "insufficient memory for fork", or
"swap error". The system didn't panic unless there was an I/O error on
the swap device.

> 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.


Jesse I Pollard, II

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
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:0.031 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site