Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2000 13:34:15 -0800 (PST) | From | David Whysong <> | Subject | Re: Avoiding OOM on overcommit...? |
| |
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Jesse Pollard wrote: >On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
[On the definition of overcommit]
>>That's a totally different meaning of the word, not the one everyone >>else here is using - and if a simple failed userspace memory >>allocation causes your system to crash, get a refund. It's terminally >>broken. > >Don't change topics. that is what overcommit in this case is. It can >crash systems BECAUSE THE SYSTEM WAS TOLD TO ALLOCATE MORE MEMORY THAN WAS >AVAILABLE.
No! Look, you've been told this probably a half dozen times. If the system crashes it's due to a bug in handling OOM situaions, which has NOTHING to do with overcommit.
>User mode problems can allways cause the system to crash, if resources are >overcommited (memory in particular) - either directly due to the system going >into a deadlock hang, or directly, by having init fail.
No, that's NOT TRUE.
If you run out of a resource, the system should not crash. The kernel just has to free up the resource. A convenient way of doing that is to kill a user process.
This is COMPLETELY independent of overcommit. You have to deal with resource starvation the same way in a non-overcommitted system as well.
Dave
David Whysong dwhysong@physics.ucsb.edu Astrophysics graduate student University of California, Santa Barbara My public PGP keys are on my web page - http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~dwhysong DSS PGP Key 0x903F5BD6 : FE78 91FE 4508 106F 7C88 1706 B792 6995 903F 5BD6 D-H PGP key 0x5DAB0F91 : BC33 0F36 FCCD E72C 441F 663A 72ED 7FB7 5DAB 0F91
- 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/
| |