Messages in this thread | | | From | James Sutherland <> | Subject | Re: Overcomittable memory | Date | Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:46:05 +0000 |
| |
On 18 Mar 2000 01:44:46 -0500, you wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003171124080.3552-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk>, >James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>The only circumstance under which this change would have any effect is >>where the kernel's "promise" is put to the test. With the current >>behaviour, the promise COULD be broken. With your suggestion implemented, >>it GUARANTEES that the problem occurs. >> >>So other than turning the remote possibility of a problem into a >>guaranteed problem, the change achieves nothing. [...] > >Unless of course you are actually interested in tracking down and maybe >even fixing whatever memory leak may be causing the problem. In that >case, no joke, you really do want that problem to show itself reliably.
It isn't a problem that CAN show reliably, if it is OOM related. (Arguably, it isn't even a problem.) Your code is using memory in a particular way; if there isn't any memory, it fails.
Causing this particular (valid, AFAICS) use of memory to be a problem in itself would prevent the symptom above showing - but do you really want or need that?
James.
- 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/
| |