lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Overcomittable memory
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.084 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site