Re: Andrea VM changes

[Alan Cox]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/