[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] strict VM overcommit
On 21 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 10:10, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Make swapoff -a return -ENOMEM
> > >
> > > I've not done this on the basis that this is root specific stupidity and
> > > generally shouldnt be protected against
> >
> > Recommended reading: MIT's Magazin of Innovation Technology Review,
> > August 2002 issue, cover story: Why Software Is So Bad?
> >
> > Next you might read: "... prominent, leading Linux kernel developer
> > publically labels users stupid instead of handling a special case
> I would suggest you do something quite different. Go and read what K&R
> had to say about the design of Unix. One of the design goals of Unix is
> that the system does not think it knows better than the administrator.
> That is one of the reasons unix works well and is so flexible.

The problem is that at the time K&R said this only real men (tm) were
administrators of UNIX systems. Nowadays clueless people like me are
administrators of their Linux system at home. ;-)

With enough stupidity root can always trash his system but if as Robert
says the state of the system will be that "no allocations will succeed"
which seems to be a synonymous for "the system is practically dead" it is
IMHO a good idea to let "swapoff -a return -ENOMEM".

> Alan



You only think this is a free country. Like the US the UK spends a lot of
time explaining its a free country because its a police state.
Alan Cox

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 13:27    [W:0.110 / U:11.192 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site