lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Overcommitable memory??
Date
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:04:04 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

>
>[CC list trimmed again, I doubt Stephen Tweedie or Rik van Riel are
>interested in this discussion.]
>
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>
>>>Preventing system OOM using resource limits is equivalent to disabling
>>>overcommit. You have to restrict each of N users to 1/N of the total
>>>system memory.
>>
>>No. That is NOT overcommit. Overcommit, in this context, is when a
>>process calls malloc() and is given unpopulated address space, which
>>will be populated on use.
>
>In the quota case, in order to prevent a system-wide OOM you must give
>each of N users an average of 1/N of the total system memory (ignoring
>kernel overhead). The side effect is that overcommittment is now
>impossible, because the system can only be overcommitted if a user has
>exceeded their quota, which is not allowed...
>
>Unless you don't count COW pages against a user's quota?

No; overcommit involves something totally different. All the users
could have malloc()ed 2Gb blocks of address space, provided they
didn't USE it. (A sparse matrix, for example. A classic example of
overcommit making code MUCH simpler.)

Overcommit doesn't involve quotas. It just involves demand-allocation
of memory.


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:0.319 / U:1.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site