Re: Kernel VM bug?

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 02:01:29PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I'm not sure if I'm niggling over terminology, or pointing out a
> significant misunderstanding: but /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory 0
> (indeed the default) is not what I call strict non-overcommit: that's 2.
> All settings (0, 1, 2) maintain the Committed_AS count shown in
> /proc/meminfo; but only /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_memory 2 totals and
> limits reservations using it.  1 imposes no limit.  0 checks that the
> particular "reservation" could plausibly be made available now, but
> without considering the total: so allows any number of concurrent
> maximum reservations - traditional relaxed Linux behaviour, not strict.
> (2 came along much later, yes the naming and numbering are both horrid.)

I'm not sure if the numbers changed or something else went wrong. Not
encouraging to hear this behaved differently from my expectations
without my noticing.


-- wli
-
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/