Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Mar 2000 17:40:24 -0500 (EST) | From | Michael Bacarella <> | Subject | Overcommitable memory?? Re: Some questions about linux kernel. |
| |
> > I take it you run your sash mlock()ed with a special > > kernel patch to make sure procfs doesn't need to allocate > > memory on sash's behalf :) > > Unfortunatelly not. > > But if would be posible to somehow dividie the memory into overcommitable > and one which is not overcommitable it could help.
Wouldn't this problem be avoided if the kernel DIDN'T overcommit memory?
I mean, nobody tolerates their filesystem overcommitting blocks it doesn't have (or maybe they do and my reality is a myth). Why should it be tolerated for virtual memory?
Are the benefits to saying "uh, sure. we only have 600 megs of VM, but uh, feel free to let your system commit 1 gig" worth it? What makes that behavior desirable?
I'm not condemning, I'm just curious.
-MB
- 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/
| |