Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:20:46 -0600 (CST) | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: OOM killer??? |
| |
avid Lang <dlang@diginsite.com>: >one of the key places where the memory is 'allocated' but not used is in >the copy on write conditions (fork, clone, etc) most of the time very >little of the 'duplicate' memory is ever changed (in fact most of the time >the program that forks then executes some other program) on a lot of >production boxes this would be a _very_ significant additional overhead in >memory (think a busy apache server, it forks a bunch of processes, but >currently most of that memory is COW and never actually needs to be >duplicated)
So? If the requirement is no-overcommit, then assume it WILL be overwritten. Allocate sufficient swap for the requirement.
Now, it shouldn't be necessary to include the text segment - after all this should be marked RX.
Actually just X would do, but on Intel systems that also means R. and if W is set it also means RWX. I hope that Intel gets a better clue about memory protection sometime soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse I Pollard, II Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
Any opinions expressed are solely my own. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |