Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Andrea VM changes | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:29:49 +0100 |
| |
On Sul, 2003-08-31 at 15:59, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > And I don't see how you can avoid oom killing to ever happen if the apps > recurse on the stack and growsdown some hundred megs. In such case > you've to oom kill, since there's no synchronous failure path during the > stack growsdown walk.
The stack grow fails and you get a signal. Its up to you to have a language that handles this or in C enjoy the delights of sigaltstack. In practice the settings are such that this case basically "doesnt happen" for all normal use.
> I just don't think it solves or hides the other issues, it seems > completely orthogonal to me, because you can still run oom during stack > growsdown.
Agreed - and there will always be corner cases, people who don't want strict overcommit etc. Thats why I said "as well". Its not a replacement for OOM handling of some form.
- 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/
| |