On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 17:50:37 +0200 (MET DST), you wrote:
>"A month of sundays ago Marco Colombo wrote:"
>> > * Ok, demand-loading was easy, shared pages a little bit tricker. Shared
>> > * pages started 02.12.91, seems to work. - Linus.
>> > *
>> > * Tested sharing by executing about 30 /bin/sh: under the old kernel it
>> > * would have taken more than the 6M I have free, but it worked well as
>> > * far as I could see.
>> > *
>> > * Also corrected some "invalidate()"s - I wasn't doing enough of them.
>> > */
>>
>> I don't think the above comment is about overcommitting swap space.
>> He's talking about sharing the text segments of processes, i think.
>> But you should ask Linus, I was not there at the moment (01.12.91) B-).
>
>And I arrived later too. But while we're on the subject of swap space,
>doesn't "reserve me 8MB of disk-based swap as backing for my stack" cure
>everyones OOM blues? I propose that that's a fair use for swap nowadays.
>I don't _actually_ want to use swap myself, and having it there only
>as the "gold-standard" at the back of the IOU seems the best use.
On the contrary - reserving an extra 8Mb of swap per process would
CAUSE further OOM problems. You would still run OOM, it would just
happen sooner than it otherwise would.
>That only leaves malloc and fork overhead as candidates for unexpected
>segfaults. Malloc can be cured by the programmer touching the memory
>when he gets it. Fork overhead is dealt with by having a reserve for
>the kernel.
What's the point? What, precisely, do you gain by this?
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:24 EST