In clouddancer.list.kernel, David wrote:
>>Didn't everyone pretty much agree that if we could turn off overcommit
>>completely and reliably, that would be the preferred solution ? Simply sig11
>>the app that's unlucky enough to want more memory than there's in the system
>>(or, horror, have malloc() fail)
>>
>>Now, I don't remember the entire thread, but IIRC it was difficult to kill
>>overcommit completely.
>>
>
>The kernel allocates memory within itself. We will still reach OOM
>conditions. It can't be avoided.
That doesn't sound good.
What bugs me about this statement was that until 2.4, I never had
lockups. I sometimes had a LOT of swapping and slow response, but I
also knew that running a complex numeric simulation when RAM <
'program needs' does that. I accepted it and tended to arrange such
runs in my absence. Now I find that I get some process nuked (or
worse - partially nuked) even after increasing to 4x swap and
eliminating lazy habits that would leave some idle process up for a
few days in case I needed it again (worked fine in 2.0.36). There are
_alot_ of good things in 2.4, but sometimes....
Does your statement imply that a machine left "alone" must eventually
OOM given enough runtime?? It seems that it must.
-- 2.4 VM: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 21:00:22 EST