Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller

[Pavel Emelianov]

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 11:48 +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> If memory is considered to be unreclaimable then actions should be
>> taken at mmap() time, not later! Rejecting mmap() is the only way to
>> limit user in unreclaimable memory consumption.
> 
> I don't think this is necessarily true.  Today, if a kernel exceeds its
> allocation limits (runs out of memory) it gets killed.  Doing the
> limiting at mmap() time instead of fault time will keep a sparse memory
> applications from even being able to run.

If limiting _every_ mapping it will, but when limiting only
"private" mappings - no problems at all. BC code lives for
more than 3 years already and no claims from users on this
question yet.

> Now, failing an mmap() is a wee bit more graceful than a SIGBUS, but it
> certainly introduces its own set of problems.
> 
> -- Dave
> 
> 

-
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/