Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:22:33 -0600 (CST) | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: OOM killer??? |
| |
Guest section DW <dwguest@win.tue.nl>: > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 01:02:38PM +0100, Sean Hunter wrote: > > > The reason the aero engineers don't need to select a passanger to throw out > > when the plane is overloaded is simply that the plane operators do not allow > > the plane to become overloaded. > > Yes. But today Linux willing overcommits. It would be better if > the default was not to.
Preferably, the default should be a configure option, with runtime alterations.
> > Furthermore, why do you suppose an aeroplane has more than one altimeter, > > artifical horizon and compass? Do you think it's because they are unable to > > make one of each that is reliable? Or do you think its because they are > > concerned about what happens if one fails _however unlikely that is_. > > Unix V6 did not overcommit, and panicked if is was out of swap > because that was a cannot happen situation.
Ummm... no. The user got "ENOMEM" or "insufficient memory for fork", or "swap error". The system didn't panic unless there was an I/O error on the swap device.
> If you argue that we must design things so that there is no overcommit > and still have an OOM killer just in case, I have no objections at all.
good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
| |