lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: additional oom-killer tuneable worth submitting?
    Date
    Alan wrote:
    > > What I understood from Arjan is that the problem isn't swapspace, but
    > > rather that shared-libs are implement via a COW trick, which always
    > > overcommits, no matter what.
    >
    > The zero overcommit layer accounts address space not pages.

    So OOM can still occur?

    > > Are you saying there is some new no-overcommit functionality in 2.6.19,
    > > or has this been there before?
    >
    > Red Hat Enterprise Linux for a very long time, got merged upstream a long
    > long time ago to. Then got various fixes along the way. It's old
    > functionality.

    That's what I thought, but it's still really easy to OOM even with
    no-overcommit.

    Using ulimit -v [total VMsize/runqueue] seems to inhibit this rather
    effectively, but needs to be maintained dynamically per process.

    Couldn't this be handled by the kernel?


    Thanks!

    --
    Al

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-12-08 18:01    [W:0.019 / U:1.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site